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

ckgmail

And what about city wide evangelistic "crusades"? And "Campus Crusade" for that matter?

Mennoman

Be gone with them too.

steveholt

ckgmail - I would have loved to address the other Christian uses for "crusades" in this piece, but I needed to narrow my focus. I do believe the term "crusade" has worn out its welcome and lost nearly all the meaning it once had. (in our pluralistic society) I think it should be dropped completely out of our lexicon.

And I know that Campus Crusade's name is offensive to many. A friend of mine attended a university with a CC chapter back before he knew much about Christianity and was utterly appalled that a group would choose that name. He said it is still a huge turn-off for him even though he identifies with Christianity now more than he used to.

That's a whole 'nother essay, though.

ckgmail

Steve, Thanks for doing what you did. I was not rebuking you for not covering these other "crusades," just adding my two cents worth. (Two cents is probably a little more than the market value.) I note you are from East Boston and love gardening. I too like to garden, in a much less hospitable climate (Texas Panhandle) but I do manage to grow a few tomatoes and some other produce. My granddaughter, Lydia Bean, just graduated (PhD) from Harvard in June. She is a justice person, so wonder if you might have met.
Charles Kiker, Tulia, Texas

steveholt

I think I know of your daughter from the Boston Faith & Justice Network, of which we were a part several years ago. Small world!

Thanks for the kind comment!

steveholt

granddaughter -- sorry.

xfree9

I went to seminary with a missionary and leader in the CC world. He said they all talk about the horrible name, and in most countries, they find more reasonable and less offensive names for the organization. I suppose the leadership hasn't quite found it worthwhile to change the name for whatever reason... but my friend said that it's pretty well-known and understood by those within CC that it's not a great name, especially globally, and even domestically.

Weiwen Ng

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

xfree9

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

xfree9

(double post)

duhsciple

Remember you are only allowed 3 seconds in the foul lane on a double post ;)

letjusticerolldown

No issue here with asking for different mascots. Moving past that: What if the cross offends? What if militaristic images offend? What if American imagery or references offend? What if English language offends? What if the Bible offends? What if Jesus offends?

JoannaCW

I know, sometimes they do. And then we have two things to figure out: Does the thing which offends them have a true and positive meaning which speaks to us? If not, then we should probably drop it; if yes, then I think we need to keep using what we find helpfulk but also try and find out where the offense comes from. I have sometimes offended people by voicing, and trying to live by, an understanding of Jesus' message which challenged some of their comforts. Then there's a real challenge to be dealt with carefully. Sometimes people have been offended by my use of Christian language because they associated it with something else (anti-Semitism, homophobia...) which I also would object to; a little time spent listening can clarify this.

ckgmail

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

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.

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 .

MacArthur4

"Imagine for a minute the fallout were a Muslim high school in America to choose for its mascot “the Jihadists"

Good grief , how many people do you know use the term religious right ? Religious left ? But Crusades is one of how many words in todays world that has lost its meaning . Ever read the original King James Version ?

if a kids says math Sucks it is a total different meaning to someone quite older. Some people believe the American Flag is a symbol of imperialism , some think it represents choice and freedom.
Want to leave it out of the 4th of July parades / because it may offend some Englishmen ?
How many people see words like family values as abusive because some of the people associated with it were actually quite rude, but how many times have you seen people who mock family values because they have none.

Words are important , But a kids crusade where they go and learn about Jesus and Love , learn bible verses and what is means to Follow Jesus , this seems more important then what you are speaking to . Promote all kids living in a culture where their parents can go and worship and not be the portrayal of a someone who hides bomb on their person or someone who only has a narrow point of view and you have my attention .
otherwise you look like your picking and choosing , and only concerned about a politically correct group, which I guess is why the term politically correct was started . ;0)

.

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.

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.

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.