I want to return to an important book called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek. The first couple of chapters dealt with arguments for the existence of truth. The authors move to a new chapter in which they attempt to prove that God exists. Their first argument is called the Cosmological Argument.

t\They start with a story of Albert Einstein. It was in 1916 when Einstein’s calculations revealed the universe had a definite beginning. This upset Einstein as well as other physicists who wanted the universe to be static and eternal. Why should they care about the beginning of the universe? Because it allowed for God as creator.

Einstein’s work hinted at the possibility of God for a simple reason. His theory of General Relativity supported one of the oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God — the Cosmological Argument. It sounds complicated but it’s very simple. In logical form, the argument looks like this: everything that had a beginning had a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. This cause came to be called the Big Bang.

The authors give five reasons to prove the universe had a beginning with this Big Bang. First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, says that nature tends to bring things to disorder. We see that the universe still has some order left with some usable energy, so the universe cannot be eternal. Secondly, we have found over the last 75 years that the universe is expanding; if we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see everything in the universe collapsing back to point. Another piece of scientific evidence is the cosmic background radiation, which is actually light and heat left over from the initial explosion of the Big Bang. A fourth clue was the discovery of slight variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies. A fifth supporting fact is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, which shows that time, space, and matter are interdependent; you can’t have one without the others. This theory demands an absolute beginning for all three.

The book contains an interesting quotation from Robert Jastrow, the director of Mount Wilson and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. He is an agnostic when it comes to religious matters, so this is not someone in the camp of Christianity. He writes, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” In other words, Genesis seems to give a good picture of the Big Bang.

Why does God have to be dragged into this? Couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Here’s the key point — natural forces, in fact all of nature, were created at the Big Bang. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Something outside of nature had to do the job, and that’s where the term “supernatural” comes into the picture.

At this point, when God is suggested as the Beginner, atheists come up with an age-old question: “Then who made God? If everything needs a cause, that God needs a cause too.” But the Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes into being needs a cause. God did not come into being. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause.

What characteristics of God can be seen from the evidence discussed in this chapter? He must be self existent, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial. He must be unimaginably powerful. He must be supremely intelligent. He must be personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe.

The authors end the chapter with a key question: “If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?” Good point.

So here’s the last of several blogs in reaction to Jimmy Carter’s pronouncement that Islam and Christianity are the same in their treatment of women. That’s simply not true. I’ve gone through the New Testament’s comments on women to show how much females were raised in relation to the culture around them. For this last blog, I’d like to acknowledge some problems within the church but end on the positive things that have come about due to the high status of women the gospels and letters of the New Testament proclaim.

Yes, Jimmy Carter was on to something—there have been church leaders in the past who have denigrated women. Some people mistakenly believe these contemptuous beliefs of the church fathers are rooted in an anti-female Bible, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. People held these wrong beliefs in spite of, not because of, the biblical teachings. Those individuals allowed themselves to be shaped by the beliefs of the surrounding pagan, anti-female culture. It’s unfortunate that some of them didn’t allow the woman-honoring principles found in Scripture to change their unbiblical beliefs. But that’s the failing of imperfect followers of Jesus, not a failure of God or the New Testament.

Let’s consider the years since then. Over and over we see the positive results of a faith that emphasizes the value of women. As Christianity spread throughout the world, its redemptive effects elevated women and set them free in many ways. The Christian ethic declared equal worth and value for both men and women. Husbands were commanded to love their wives and not exasperate their children. These principles were in direct conflict with the Roman culture, which gave a husband absolute power of life and death over his family, including the wife.

The biblical view of husbands and wives as equal partners caused a huge change in marriage as well. Christian women started marrying later, and they married men of their own choosing. This eroded the ancient practice of men marrying child brides against their will, often as young as eleven or twelve years old. The greater marital freedom that Christianity gave women eventually gained wide appeal. Today, a Western woman is not compelled to marry someone she does not want, nor can she legally be married as a child bride. But the practice continues in parts of the world where Christianity has little or no presence. Consider Islam—Mohammed married a six-year old and had sex with her within three years. How’s that for a contrast with Christian values?

Another effect of the salt and light of Christianity was its impact on the common practice of polygamy, which demeans women. Many men, including biblical heroes, had multiple wives, but Jesus made clear this was never God’s intention. Whenever he spoke about marriage, it was always in the context of monogamy. He said, “The two [not three or four] will become one flesh.” As Christianity spread, God’s intention of monogamous marriages became the norm.

Two more cruel practices were abolished as Christianity gained influence. In some cultures, such as India, widows were burned alive on their husbands’ funeral pyres. It ended when the British intervened, thanks to their Christian faith. In China, the crippling practice of foot binding was intended to make women totter on their pointed, slender feet in a seductive manner. It was finally outlawed only about a hundred years ago.

As a result of Jesus Christ and His teachings, women in much of the world today, especially in the West, enjoy more privileges and rights than at any other time in history. It takes only a cursory trip to an Arab nation or to a Third World country to see how little freedom women have in countries where Christianity has had little or no presence. It’s the best thing that ever happened to women, despite the pronouncements of Jimmy Carter.

I’d like to do a further blog on Christianity and the role of women, thanks to alarming comments by Jimmy Carter, who suggested Islam and Christianity have a similar outlook on women—seeing them as second class. That’s far from the truth. Let’s take a look at Paul’s comments in the New Testament, which, unfortunately, many have seen as insulting to women.

One passage by Paul which has stirred controversy is found in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 where the author seems to tell Timothy that women should be in submission to men and should keep quiet in church. But is that what he really said? His remarks may have been for that culture, not ours because in other places Paul talks about greeting each other with a holy kiss and the necessity for head coverings, practices which are now nonexistent. So that’s one possibility. Then you have to see another passage (Titus 2) where Paul encourages older women to teach younger women—so apparently it was OK for women to talk and teach others. In addition, the verb in the original is different from what we usually see –“I do not permit” actually is “I am not permitting at this time.” That’s a big difference. There may have been a particular issue of confusion and noise that Paul was dealing with in one particular church.

Then there’s 1 Timothy 3:1-4 where Paul gives requirements for overseers in the church. It seems like he’s excluding women here because he uses the male pronoun. But again, if you look at the original Greek, it says “If a man or woman desire” to indicate either sex could qualify.

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, in which Paul seems to tell women to keep quiet in church. However, go back a couple of chapters in the same letter and see 11:5 where Paul tells women how to go about praying or prophesying. So it looks like it was OK for women to talk in church. Paul probably is speaking here about disorderly talking rather than any talking.

Keep in mind several things here. These passages were all from pastoral letters rather than general theological letters. Paul was addressing particular needs in particular churches in a particular culture. Secondly, our translations may not reflect clearly the original Greek. Finally, we have to balance these statements with others that definitely support equality—see Galatians 3:27-28 and Ephesians 5:21.

So Paul may be getting hit unfairly with charges of hostility to women. It strikes me as ironic how some very conservative church leaders can use these verses in an attempt to shut out women yet rely on these same women to teach Sunday school, lead music, and head up many programs at church. You can’t have it both ways—either keep the women from any role in the church or allow them to speak and teach.

Did Jimmy Carter get it right? Does Christianity share Islam’s disregard for women? I don’t think so.

In my last blog, I reacted to Jimmy Carter, who was quoted recently as saying all religions have treated women badly. I wanted to set the record straight—Christianity has done much to elevate the significance of women. I covered the way Jesus dealt with women. This time I’d like to turn to Peter and Paul to see how they viewed women.

Peter encouraged women to consider themselves as valuable because God saw them as valuable. His call to aspire to the inner beauty of a trusting and tranquil spirit is staggeringly counter-cultural, especially in today’s world where women are seen as objects. He writes, “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful.”

Equally staggering is Peter’s call to men to elevate their wives with respect and understanding: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Consideration, respect, fellow heirs—these were concepts totally alien to men of Peter’s generation.

The biggest criticism of Christianity and its view of women is due to statements by Paul. He is often accused of being a misogynist, one who hates and fears women. But Paul’s teachings on women reflect the creation order and high value God places on women as creatures made in his image. Take a look at what he had to say in Ephesians 5–he challenges men to love their wives in the self-sacrificing way Christ loves the church. In a culture where a wife was nothing but property, Paul elevates women to a position of honor previously unknown in the world.

Paul also provided highly countercultural direction for the New Testament church. Consider the Jewish synagogue–women had no place and no voice in worship. In the pagan temples, the place of women was to serve as prostitutes. The church, on the other hand, was a place for women to pray and prophecy out loud (1 Cor. 11:5). Spiritual gifts used to build up the church are given to women as well as men. Older women are commanded to teach younger ones. The invitation to women to participate in worship of Jesus was unique in that day.

Maybe next time I can look closely at a couple of passages that critics especially love to point out as representative of Paul’s distrust of women.

Jimmy Carter has done it again. In today’s Drudge Report he says much of the discrimination and abuse suffered by women around the world is attributable to a belief “that women are inferior in the eyes of God.” Carter said such teachings by “leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions” allow men to beat their wives and deny women their fundamental rights as human beings. Once more he sees a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam where it doesn’t exist. He needed to explain that Christianity has elevated the status of women. So, for the next couple of blogs, I’d like to explore that idea further in hopes of clarifying what our “beloved” former President has said.

What would be the status of women in the Western world today if Jesus had never been born? Let’s compare their status in the West with that of women under the control of Islam. In most present-day Islamic countries, women are still denied many rights that are available to men, and when they appear in public, they must be veiled. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, women are even barred from driving an automobile. In many Arab countries where the Islamic religion is adhered to strongly, a man has the right to beat and sexually desert his wife, all with the full support of the Koran.

This command is the polar opposite of what the New Testament says regarding a man’s relationship with his wife. Paul told the Christians in Ephesus, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” And he added, “He who loves his wife loves himself.” Jesus loved women and treated them with great respect and dignity.

The New Testament’s teaching on women also wasn’t found in the Greco-Roman culture of Jesus’ time. In ancient Greece, for example, a respectable woman was not allowed to leave the house unless she was accompanied by a trustworthy male escort. A wife was not permitted to eat or interact with male guests in her husband’s home; she had to retire to her woman’s quarters. Men kept their wives under lock and key, and women had the social status of a slave. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and when they grew up, they were not allowed to speak in public. Women were considered inferior to men.

The status of Roman women was also very low. Roman law placed a wife under the absolute control of her husband, who had ownership of her and all her possessions. He could divorce her if she went out in public without a veil. A husband had the power of life and death over his wife, just as he did his children. As with the Greeks, women were not allowed to speak in public.

Even the Jewish faith, from which Christianity grew, failed to give women a high status. Jewish women were barred from public speaking. The oral law prohibited women from reading the Torah out loud. Synagogue worship was segregated, with women never allowed to be heard.

Now, consider how Jesus interacted with women–what a difference. Let’s look at the story of his encounter with a Samaritan woman at a well in John 4. How he dealt with her was extremely unusual, even radical. He ignored the Jewish anti-Samaritan prejudices along with prevailing view that saw women as inferior beings. He started a conversation with her—a Samaritan, a woman—in public. The rabbinic oral law was explicit: “He who talks with a woman [in public] brings evil upon himself.” Another rabbinic teaching prominent in Jesus’ day taught, “One is not so much as to greet a woman.” So we can understand why his disciples were amazed to find him talking to a woman in public. Today we read this story unaware of what a powerful statement Jesus is making here regarding the rights and dignity of women.

There are many other ways Jesus demonstrated his regard for women. Mary, Martha and Lazarus entertained Jesus at their home. He allowed Mary to do what only men had been allowed to do, namely, learn from Jesus’ teachings. Mary was the cultural deviant, but so was Jesus, because he violated the rabbinic law of his day [about speaking to women]. By teaching Mary spiritual truths, he violated another rabbinic law, which said, “Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women. In addition, women followed Jesus, a highly unusual phenomenon in first-century Palestine. This behavior may not seem unusual to us today, but in Jesus’ day it was highly unusual. Scholars note that in the prevailing culture only prostitutes and women of very low repute would follow a man without a male escort. Another example is that of Jesus’ resurrection scene. The first people Jesus chose to appear to were women; not only that, but he instructed them to tell his disciples that he was alive. In a culture where a woman’s testimony was worthless because she was worthless, Jesus elevated the value of women beyond anything the world had seen.

Does anyone see anything like this concern for the status of women in other religious movements, especially Islam? Nope. Let me continue this in a future blog. In the meantime, enjoy the colorful comments of Jimmy Carter as the fiction which they are.

In the middle of April I will be giving a presentation to the post-college group at our church on the topic of the uniqueness of Jesus. I’ve been doing some research on the topic–it’s amazing how many different ways Jesus stands out from other religious leaders.

First, the sources of information about him are unique. They are much closer to his time than any source for other religious leaders. Plus, there are so many of them – roughly 5000 Greek manuscripts survive. In addition, these sources are written by eyewitnesses or by those who talked to eyewitnesses, so there’s a great authenticity to what is reported.

Jesus is also unique in the prophecies made about him and the fulfillment of these prophecies. I won’t take the time here to list all the Bible references, but throughout the Old Testament there are passages that relate to the coming of the Messiah – his lineage, the tribe he will belong to, when he will be born, where he will be born, the type of birth he will have, his childhood in Egypt, the purpose of his death, the method of his death, and, finally, a resurrection.

Events surrounding the life of Jesus were unique as well. His birth, his miracles, and his exorcisms all were unique when compared to other religious leaders. Something that is particularly special for a Jewish man was his acceptance of worship from his followers. No Jew was supposed to be worshiped; this was reserved for God.

What Jesus said was unique. Instead of being a typical rabbi who tried to explain the law, Jesus reinterpreted it, taking the role of God himself (“. . . but I tell you”). He made startling claims about his divinity, his existence, his ability to forgive sins, his future role as judge of all. Besides this, he made promises for his followers then and now – if they believed in him, he would grant them eternal life. Can you imagine someone at work telling you, “I am the way . . . I am the resurrection and the life”?

What friends said about him was unique. Peter called him Messiah, Thomas exclaimed “My Lord and my God,” and John said Jesus existed with God before the world began and was responsible for creating everything. No other religious leader had his/her followers saying anything like this.

What his enemies said about him was also unique. Jewish leaders of the time accused him of blasphemy because they knew he claimed to be God. In the Jewish Talmud, written after Jesus ascended to heaven, references are made to his supernatural powers, which are credited to satanic influence. But note that this Jewish source does admit Jesus performed miracles. Plus, there are Roman historians, no friends of Jesus, who talk of him receiving worship reserved for the gods.

Jesus is also unique because of his positive impact on the world. No other religious authority has done so much to improve the human race. Women were esteemed more highly, hospitals were founded, universities were set up, capitalism and free enterprise came about, civil liberties were proclaimed, modern science got its start, the common individual was elevated, life was considered more precious – all in the name of Jesus.

Finally, his relationship to the religion he founded was unique. All other religious leaders can be taken out of their religions. For example, Islam functions perfectly well with or without Mohammed. So does Buddhism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, Scientology, and all the others. But this is not the case with Christianity. Take Jesus out of Christianity, and the entire structure collapses. The old cliché is true: “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.”

When we look at all of these points, we have to make a decision. Jesus has to be one of four things – liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord. But Jesus doesn’t exhibit characteristic traits of a liar. In addition, his teaching does not suggest a disturbed mind. But what about Jesus as legend? That’s not a good option either because very little time elapsed between the events of his life and the writings of the Gospels. Much more time is required if legend is to creep in. So, were left with one choice – Jesus is Lord.

This is a quick blog today dealing with similar ideas obtained from two different sources.

The first is from Greg Koukl, a great source of wisdom and practical knowledge about all apologetics issues. He’s on the radio every Sunday from 2-5 p.m. on KBRT-AM 740. If you can’t listen to him, go to his web site (str.org) for downloads and great articles.

He was talking to someone about the issue of morality. He claims atheists can be moral, but they have no grounding (ultimate reason) for their morality. He ended the conversation by saying something simple but profound. Atheists and evolutionists can talk a good morality line, but they fail at a key point. Evolution is descriptive—it tries to tell what happened. But morality is prescriptive—it tries to tell what we ought to do.

These are two very different things. They don’t overlap. You can talk all you want about how things came about, but you’ll never be able to say why we should obey the rules that you say have evolved.

The second reference to this concept came about from a CD I’m listening to. It’s The Lamb and the Fuhrer by Ravi Zacharias, an imagined discussion between Jesus and Adolf Hitler. This question came up: “How can you make moral judgments in a world without moral laws?” We see this today—people refuse to say things are truly immoral because they have jettisoned the idea of moral laws, existing beyond the whims and opinions of fallible human beings. If there is no higher morality and it’s all a matter of taste, then we can’t judge anything as immoral.

But it’s impossible to live this way, so we hear people complaining of true moral issues (“the war is wrong,” “that’s immoral,” he’s guilty of genocide,” etc.). We need to call them on it. If they have turned their back on the existence of a God who has standards of morality, they can only say they don’t like the issue at hand. Morality becomes an issue like flavors of ice cream—we like some and dislike others.

Those who say God doesn’t exist don’t want to do this, so they act as if there is true morality in their issues. They have smuggled in Christian morality while rejecting the God who established the standards. Again, we need to remind them of their double-mindedness.

This is a shorter blog than usual, but it’s on an interesting topic. We hear a lot about the Big Bang in cosmology. It was a term applied sarcastically when it was initially brought out as an explanation for the beginning of the universe. But now scientists are satisfied that it is the true description of what happened at the very beginning–the universe expanded from a single point into the vast array of stars, planets, dust, and dark matter that we encounter today. This concept is widely misunderstood, and Hugh Ross (head of Reasons to Believe) wrote a short piece that clarifies what the Big Bang really means.

When we think of an explosion, we picture an uncontrolled event with pieces being driven in random directions out to random distances. Think of a grenade going off or a stick of dynamite exploding. But this isn’t the case with the start of the universe. Its expansion is neither random nor chaotic.

In fact, the Big Bang was precise and fine-tuned in such a way as to bring life into existence. As an example, the rate of expansion had to be exactly right. If it had been slightly slower, all matter would have collapsed back together so that no stars or planets would have formed. If the explosion had been any faster, all would have flown apart, resulting in no stars or planets sticking together.

Ross says there are two physical factors that control this cosmic expansion, and they illustrate the precision of the initial explosion. These two factors are the mass density and dark energy density. If you want more info on this part of his explanation, take a look at his books or go to his web site (reasons.org).

Ross claims that the Bible has described all the key principles of big bang cosmology in its pages. He can show you various passages that refer to the beginning of matter/energy/space/time, ongoing cosmic expansion, and the constancy of physical laws. Again, you can check these points for yourself by reading some of his provocative books or looking at items on his web site.

The Big Bang is not a threat to our faith in an intelligent designer as some would suggest. It acts as confirmation of the existence of a creator God who fashioned a universe in which humans could exist and ponder how they got there. I highly recommend Ross and his organization. Let me know if you’d like some good books to start with in this area.

In the past few blogs I’ve looked at Rodney Stark’s book on the Crusades–God’s Battalions. It’s an important book becuase it tells a far different story than the one we hear from Muslims and critics of our Western world, who have twisted history in an attenmpt to make the West (and Christianity) look as bad as possible. This final blog on the topic is going to be a hodgepodge of various pieces of historical information.

For onething, Stark attacks the idea that Crusaders were interested only in taking more land and money for themselves. He notes that an earlier pope in 1063 A.D. had proposed a crusade to drive infidel Muslims out of Spain. That land, unlike the Holy Land, was extremely wealthy, full of fertile lands, and much closer for crusaders. But the pope interested very few in this request. But just thirty-some years later, tens of thousands of Crusaders set out for faraway Palestine. Why? Spain was not the Holy Land where Christ had walked.

Here’s another myth that Stark attacks — the Crusades were possible only because it was a time of hardship and economic distress. It was not true, he says. The Crusades were possible because it was a boom time of rapid economic growth, which explains why these attempts to re-take the Holy Land were relatively well-funded, not only by participants, but by sympathetic donors.

Another problem has been the way historians claim that Crusaders attacked Jews along the way to Constantinople. Most of the massacres were actually the work of German knights who were not part of the Crusades themselves. In fact, almost everywhere along the route bishops attempted, sometimes even at the peril of their own lives, to protect the Jews.

The next criticism of the Crusaders involves a massacre that took place after they succeeded in their attack on Jerusalem. This is a horror story that has been used many times to vilify the Crusaders. Stark, however, notes that dozens of Muslim massacres had already taken place, so this is not a case of bloodthirsty barbarians in contrast to more civilized and tolerant Muslims. He also notes that a common rule of war concerning siege warfare was that if the city did not surrender before forcing the attackers to take the city by storm, the inhabitants could expect to be massacred as an example to others in the future. So, Muslims could have surrendered the city before the fighting started; if so, they would have been given terms to prevent a massacre. He notes that it was a cruel and bloody age, but that nothing is gained by imposing some sort of modern convention on those times. He believes the sources may have greatly exaggerated the extent of the massacre since the same writers routinely reported armies of one million men. One historian noted that what happened was probably not much different than what happened to any place that resisted. Stark says there is very credible evidence that most of the Jews were spared during this time.

How did Muslims fare under the rule of the Christians in the Holy Land after the initial successes? Most were peasants who reportedly were quite content under Christian dominance. Why? For one thing, no land-hungry Christians were eager to confiscate their fields or animals. For another, Muslims discovered taxes were lower in their kingdom than in neighboring Muslim countries. Perhaps most importantly, the Christian rulers tolerated the Muslims religion and made no effort to convert them.

Stark says there is a tendency to put down the Crusaders as barbaric and bigoted warmongers and to praise the Muslims as great paragons of chivalry. He says the example that is put forth of this positive view of Muslims is the famous leader Saladin. It is true that he let the defenders of Jerusalem go without slaughtering them, but this was an exception to his usual butchery of his enemies. In most other instances he demonstrated unchivalrous behavior. Following one battle, for example, he personally participated in butchering some of the captured Christians and then sat back and enjoyed watching the execution of many others.

One final charge raised against the Crusaders has to do with their sacking of the city of Constantinople. This has been offered as proof that the Crusades were a shameful episode in the greedy history of the West. However, Stark notes that many are not aware that the city was sacked by Byzantines themselves more than once. He also says no one acknowledges the centuries of Byzantine brutalities against Latin Christians. He also says people need to realize how often there was Byzantine treachery that occurred during each of the first three crusades that cost tens of thousands of Crusaders their lives. For example, members of the fourth Crusade in 1204 A.D. were deceived by a Byzantine emperor who, after the Crusaders helped restore him to the throne, broke promises and launched fire ships against the Crusaders’ fleet. Latin residents of Constantinople fled the city and took refuge in the Crusader camp, leaving the Crusaders without food or money, stranded on a foreign shore. That’s when they attacked Constantinople.

Stark has a powerful conclusion to his book that is worth quoting here:

“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 victimize the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions.”

I hope these blogs have helped set the record straight. Were these Crusades a great example of Christian behavior? No, probably not. But they are certainly not as bad as critics and Muslims have maintained. We need to be careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly when confronted with broad attacks on Christianity. They are often motivated not by truth but by anti-religious sentiments.

I’m continuing a summary of key parts of a new book by Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions. In this book the author presents evidence to suggest our current understanding of the Crusades is incorrect. In fact, he claims much of what we have been taught about these historical events has been manipulated to make the West look bad and to make Islam look much better than it really was. The conclusion we should reach is simple–if history can be twisted, what things are we being told today that are not true? Considering we are in a lengthy war with radical Islam, it’s important we consider what we really know about this issue. I would like to continue examining parts of God’s Battalions in the hope that we would re-think what the “experts tell us about the past as well as the present.

The next section of Stark’s book deals with pilgrimages and persecution: were the crusaders responding to atrocities by Islam in the Holy Land? His answer is yes. He gives a background of the history of pilgrimages to the Holy Land. In 638 A.D. Jerusalem surrendered to Muslim attackers. They immediately set up a ban which refused to allow any Jew to live in the city. Eventually this prohibition was dropped, but Christians and Jews had to accept a subordinate role in the society, known as “dhimmi.” They lived with contempt and occasional persecution. Mass murders of Christian monks and pilgrims were common, and Stark gives a lengthy list of specific times when these atrocities happened. Despite such horrors, the number of pilgrims who wished to visit the Holy Land increased over the years.

In the 10th century a new Muslim dynasty was established in Egypt and seized control of the Holy Land. One of the following rulers of this dynasty ordered the burning or confiscation of all Christian churches in the area. He also ordered the stripping and complete destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Word of this outrage sent an enormous wave of anger all across Europe. A later ruler of this dynasty permitted reconstruction of the church although Muslim attacks on Christian pilgrims had become more frequent and bloody. Here again Stark supplies a list of specific attacks.

In the 11th century things changed; unfortunately for Christians, they didn’t change for the better. Seljuk Turks began to move west, seized Persia, and set themselves up in Baghdad. Eventually they took over what today is modern Turkey. They were orthodox Sunni Muslims, but the Muslims in Cairo who were in control of the Holy Land were Shi’ites. So the Turks invaded Palestine to punish what they considered as Islamic heretics. These Turkish rulers persecuted pilgrims viciously. This set the scene for the start of the Crusades.