Christians Must Find a More Christ-like Symbol than ‘Crusaders’

by Steve Holt 11-27-2009

091120-crusaders Imagine for a minute the fallout were a Muslim high school in America to choose for its mascot “the Jihadists.”

In that light, how do you think Muslims (or Jews) view Christian schools whose mascot is “the Crusaders?”

I’m no expert on interfaith reconciliation, but it occurs to me that perhaps minimally, Christian schools should pick a new mascot if theirs is based on the bloody 200-year assault on Muslims – a series of events that would sour relations between the two faiths for centuries to come.

Consisting of nine campaigns from 1095 to 1291, the Crusades were waged by Western European Christians mainly to seize control of Muslim lands, especially The Holy Land. In fact, “crusades” literally translates “war of the cross.” The Church sanctioned and even blessed these campaigns, offering Crusaders penance for past sins to kill their enemies on behalf of their faith. Muslims and Jews were told to convert or die, and unspeakable atrocities were performed in the name of religion. Conservative estimates put the number of dead well into the millions.

In his three-volume A History of The Crusades, British historian Sir Stephen Runciman summed it up this way: “High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed … the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God.”

That a present-day Christian school would base its mascot on these events is unconscionable. But I know some wonderful teenagers who attend a Christian school with just such a mascot – specifically an armored soldier holding a sword and a shield bearing a prominent cross (not the school of the logo pictured above.) There is really only one way to interpret that symbol. In our tumultuous geopolitical climate – highlighted once again earlier this month in the deadly rampage by a Muslim soldier at Fort Hood – both Christians and Muslims must tread especially lightly and dole out generous amounts of grace in an effort to acknowledge each other’s humanity.

I hoped that perhaps my friends’ school was abnormal in its choice of a mascot, but as you might have guessed, it isn’t. It appears “Crusaders” is quite a popular mascot choice for Christian schools, with no fewer than 60 schools in the United States proudly displaying it on their jerseys and yelling it at pep rallies.

This must change.

It changed for Wheaton College, one of America’s pre-eminent Christian colleges, in 2000 as a “matter of principle,” said President Duane Litfin. “I came to realize that those [Crusades] were not very happy episodes in Christianity … They are not something we want to glorify.” He’s absolutely right, and I would like to see other Christian schools follow suit.

In my mind, this transcends our dead-end debates about “political correctness,” instead residing in the realm of Christ-likeness. We follow a Savior who rejected political clout, became nothing, preached radical peace, and ultimately laid himself down for his friends and his enemies. The Crusades were about none of these things, and after a long look at Jesus we realize that a “war of the cross” is simply oxymoronic and the glorification of these events – intentional or not – is simply un-Christian.

I’m not suggesting Christian schools take on mascots like “Cheek-turners” or “Extra Mile-Walkers,” but every school that bears the name of the Prince of Peace ought to consider whether its mascot reflects its namesake. Rather than glorify the sword in flashy logos on the side of teenagers’ football helmets, Christians should join the collective groaning of the faithful throughout the millennia for the sweet day when “…they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

Steve Holt seeks joy and justice in East Boston, Massachusetts. Steve enjoys gardening, being a husband, community life, and writing. He blogs about spirituality and his garden at harvestboston.wordpress.com.

Categories: General

Jedidiah Abdul Muhib Palosaari

As a member of the Society of Friends, I find it also disturbing how Quakers are used at times as a mascot, with the accompanying chants, "Fight, Quakers, Fight!"

The Crusades were horrible. No doubt about it. All the more horrible because we, as Christians, should have known better. Our master and prophet called us to turn towards peace, at all costs. But it should not be removed from its historic place. The crusades were a grave over-compensatory response to the jihad of Muslim invasion, which, despite the propaganda, was not quite as welcomed and peaceful as many Muslim leaders would like to now portray. Yes, Christians in the Middle East didn't like the way they were treated by their rulers, in Rome and Constantine- and the same was doubly true of the Jews. But the Muslim Conquest was welcomed "with open arms" only when those conquered peoples realized you live longer if you do that. Yes, Muslims treated their minority peoples - dhimmi - much better than the so-called Christian rulers. But both pale in comparison to modern human rights standards of equality- and sadly the dhimmi mentality and treatment continues in many Middle Eastern countries to this day. All that said, when the Muslims conquered by the sword (with conversion rarely by the sword excepting in India, and more often through prejudicial economic policies), they were merely following their prophet's (pbuh) words and actions. Not so when we did the same and worse- we decided to do the exact opposite of our prophet.

Lastly, and related to the above, the other group that could rightly object to the use of Crusaders as a school mascot are all of the Orthodox churches and schools in America- for the Orthodox Christians were the target of more than one Crusade. It wasn't "the Christians" attacking- it was Western Christians attacking anyone who got in their way. The Crusades were never more than nominally about religion. They were about money and greed and land and oppression- and mostly about hate.

And that's what I remember when I see an image of a Crusader mascot.

Nikky Wood

Steve, thank you for writing this article. I went to a Catholic elementary school where we were "the Crusaders," and yet I don't remember ever being taught about the Crusades in the 8 years I was there. Shouldn't our mascots be something we are proud of? Something that makes us actually want to tell our children where their mascot came from? (Although of course I think we should teach more church history-- even, and especially, parts we're not proud of-- but that's a different discussion.)

steveholt

Also, I agree with some of the commenters who point out other militaristic imagery in the Christian world. Like I told the first commenter, I chose to narrow my focus in this column to school mascots, but I could have just as easily addressed any number of other areas where Christians seem obsessed with war (spiritual / physical or otherwise), battle, armor, and other militaristic images. Given the times in which we live, we ought to go back to the drawing board on many of those things. Like I mention, this goes way beyond mere "political correctness." To minimize it to such misses the point completely. Thanks again for reading. Pass this along if you like it.

steveholt

Glad to see so many comments. I can't respond to every one, but I would like to address the commenter who claimed that the Crusades weren't a Christian event. I would agree that every war is political, but the Crusades especially (meaning: "War of the Cross") pitted religion against religion in order to achieve a political and imperialist objective. It absolutely was a Christian event (and a Muslim event and a Jewish event), and it was a disgrace. Some people have not and never will give faith a second look because of such blots on our history.

To name a mascot after this blot is beyond me.

Joe_Allen_Doty

What about Salvation Army?

Many folks believe that it is just a faith-based Christian service organization.

But, it is actually a church denomination and has its own church buildings where its actual members worship.

Joe_Allen_Doty

The late Billy Jame Hargis had a program which he called "Christian Crusade."

In more recent times, Metro Christian Academy in Tulsa has as its mascot, the Patriot and the school's logo is a shield with a cross on it. It is connected with the "no musical instruments in the worship service" Church of Christ.

But, the school has a band that plays at home football games and I know that because I used to live a little over a block from the school.

Dale Fincher

We've been shaking our heads about this for a while now... I'm glad more people are addressing it. Though some could argue historically that the Muslims instigated the battles in the Middle Ages that we call the "Crusades" (thus, giving Crusades a connotation as ones who defends the innocent and oppressed) the name is simply tacky and has been for a long time.

So is most battle language when it comes to talking about our faith. "Culture War" is another one (though Davidson coined the term, Christians keep using it). Since most people don't know that a lot of battle language in the New Testament refers to spiritual battles, we're better off leaving all war talk off the table in today's perceived religiously war-torn world.

And, while we are at it, we can talk about how many mascots in Christian schools use verses out of context, like "Eagles" (Isa 40:31... as if the verse promises victories or strength in organized athletic competitions!)....

BluegrassOhio

I know plenty of conservatives who think the Crusader image is mild and would prefer the sword dripping with blood from the "enemy." They seem to make gains by villifying others I suppose.

BluegrassOhio

Duplicate post, sorry

MacArthur4

We will be hated for our faith, we are told. I only pray that we are hated out of authentic reflections of Christ's love

Well said , I know many for instances of people who take political stands that show so much vitrolic images of people they disagree with yet when people harshly return their poltical fire they see it as being persecuted for the name of Christ. I think Christians often do this with issues of social cultural debates . Well said squeaky , you have been quite well spoken of late .

xfree9

It's not easy to change a name that old... but personally I don't think that's a good excuse.

sgillesp

I disagree with Robenbtag and quaker - the Crusades were certainly a "Christian" event, although they were also certainly a "Christendom" event. The word of God was abused and illiterate Christians were persuaded that this was what God wanted from them. Those cultures who were on the killing end of those spears still remember the brutality, and it's not their fault if they don't understand that the Crusades didn't represent what our Lord taught us to do. It's not about being politically correct - it's about not building obstacles that prevent someone from ever hearing who Jesus is, before we even start talking. There's no good reason to name your school's team the Crusaders, and many good reasons not to - so what purpose does it serve to defend it?

quaker

I agree with robenbtag... the crusades werent a christian event. It was pushed as such to give it appeal. Nothing to do with christians. those that feel this way make it that way. the word doesnt mean military and such. it was used that way but doesnt mean that. when people stop thinking so shallowly and negatively we might get some where. political correctness has been a horrible thing. Gone way to far with it.

robenbtaglienti

I am less concerned with the use of the word "Crusades" and more concerned with your interpretation of The Crusades and how you've limited you view of the event in such a way as to redefine history.

Weiwen Ng

If they aren't changing their name, then they clearly aren't really aware of how bad it is.

Ashley Renee

Speaking as someone who never thought much about it: I agree with the sentiments of this article completely. That said, I must say that whenever I've seen the "Christian Solider" portrayed I've thought of the full armor of God and waging spiritual warfare on the powers of darkness - not on men. I never, until now, connected the atrocities of the historical crusades with the images I was seeing.

Perhaps I was simply conditioned that way, perhaps that's the mindset many people have when they choose those logos.

Thank you, Mr. Holt, for bringing this up and I encourage people to spread this message. If it insults without need ("If what is at the center of our faith offends, then we live with it. If what is not at the center of our faith offends, then we should question whether it is worth hanging onto." -Squeaky) and thereby keeps people in need of God at bay, we not only should but must reconsider our choice.

scat

Seems to me it's about more than what offends other people. It's also about what kind of symbols should be representing the Prince of Peace. I find anything warlike, physical weapon, menacing, etc, to be a poor representation of what Christ was and what Christians should strive to
emulate. A sword and shield do not represent a message of love.

squeaky

I think the distinction is the Cross is the center of our faith. The Crusades are not. Nor are militaristic images. Or the English language. The Bible--just outside the center of our faith with Jesus smack dab in the middle simultaneously occupying that space with God and the Holy Spirit. If what is at the center of our faith offends, then we live with it. If what is not at the center of our faith offends, then we should question whether it is worth hanging onto.

We will be hated for our faith, we are told. I only pray that we are hated out of authentic reflections of Christ's love. Seems to me we are more often hated because we don't reflect Christ's love. But rather than seeing that as a wake-up call, I have heard people shrug at their bad behavior and justify it with a dismissive comment like, "this is what Jesus meant when He said we would be hated because of Him." Let us be hated for our authentic, Christ-like love.

ckgmailOTscholar

Let justice, crusade is in an offensive category all by itself with the abuses during the crusades.