Christians Must Find a More Christ-like Symbol than 'Crusaders'

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.

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.

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.

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!)....

Duplicate post, sorry

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

"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)

.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.