Crusade: A March Through Time
We rented a movie recently and my wife didn't know there was probably a Children's Crusade in the 13th century. They all got slaughtered. Regardless of whether there was or not, this movie shows you how people of faith think and argue. The movie is instructive I think, for the boy hero of the story was troubled by it all. Christian, how would you respond to such faith talk? Watch the movie and tell us. That's exactly how you sound to us!
13 comments:
How was the movie itself? It looks interesting enough.
It's sort of a family movie for the most part, but it was well done and we liked it a great deal.
Most thinking evangelicals would compare abortion -- particularly late term and post-natal abortions -- to the Children's Crusades. They would wonder why secularists would condemn the insanity of a Children's crusade while advocating the slaughter of millions of babies in abortion clinics.
To that end I would agree with the evangelicals.
What's more, I can't think of one Christian who thinks sending kids off to war is the will of God.
On the other hand there are religionists who deprive their children of medical care. Their delusional thinking supposes God will intervene. The consequences are often deadly.
There are also accounts of Muslim nations such as Iran and Hussein's Iraq that forced boys into warfare. Mao's atheistic communist government did the same in China.
There likely weren't any Children's Crusades as depicted in Crusade in Jeans (or, Crusade: A March Through Time).
If you think that A. Plantinga, R. Swinburne, W.L. Craig, and such sound like the characters in the movie, you have told us a lot more about yourself than you have about Plangtina, Swinburne, and Craig.
While I was watching the movie, the dialogue I found myself wanting to respond to was the Crusaders' obsession with Jerusalem. There simply is no theological warrant for the notion that Jerusalem had to be under the temporal control of Christians, much less that it was to be accomplished by force of arms (or children putting themselves in harms way). There was so much that needed development and attention within Christendom itself, the focus was flawed as a matter of reason and revelation.
Of course, I then realized this was a children's movie and that I would (and have) benefit(ed) more from the study of history and what the Crusaders and historians have to say about the motives and rationale of the time.
A very good, and easily read, book on the Crusades is, The New Concise History of the Crusades, by Thomas F. Madden.
I just checked it out on wikipedia,
and if its accurate, it is a good study in how misinterpretation of a word in a translation can add a facet to a story that reduces its accuracy but increases its popularity, and then when people like it how they will re-transmit the story until the original is almost replaced by the revision.
For those of that are bi-lingual, we know how easy it is to be misunderstood even when we are certain we are speaking correctly.
It is also a good study on what criteria constitute an authoritative source.
In my view this story is valuable not for the topic but for the history of its origin.
In my view, since reading and writing were not as prevalent in Jesus time, this is probably the process that went on with the difference being that the stories origins are lost forever.
HI Andrew,
That blogger ID was used by someone in the past that was typically being verbally abusive and generally disruptive.
Unfortunately that Blogger ID is blocked here. If the original user has abandoned it and you have picked it up, that's unfortunate.
To comment here you should get another blogger ID.
This particular Andrew (above) has posted demeaning comments just as bad as the other one, so don't be fooled.
Layman, it may well be that there was no Children's crusade, but if not then why was such a hoax perpetrated by the church in the first place? And why are historical studies fraught with such difficulties when we want to ascertain the truth about the past? Historical studies are a slender reed to hang one's hat on, which is a major theme with me.
No, I don’t think Plantinga, Swinburne, or Craig, sound exactly like the characters in the movie. But I have heard many believers talk that way in my years as a Pastor. Faith is a virtue. Doubt is a vice. You know what I’m talking about too.
Layman said…There simply is no theological warrant for the notion that Jerusalem had to be under the temporal control of Christians, much less that it was to be accomplished by force of arms (or children putting themselves in harms way).
Well I suppose you’ll say that if you lived at that time you wouldn’t think as they did, right? Maybe you would also vehemently oppose heretic and witch burnings as well as slavery? Good for you! How do you really know that since most all Christians thought that way in their day? Jerusalem figures prominently in eschatology in the Gospels and the rest of the NT especially Revelation. So why wouldn’t they conclude what they did? It was the holy city. Don’t get me wrong about this. I think you’re right of course. But unlike you the arguments were compelling to the Church of that day and I have no reason to suspect they weren’t every bit as rational and intelligent as you or I are today. I fault your God for not foreseeing these kinds of things and for not clearly communicating his perfectly good will to his followers. Why didn’t your God simply say, “Thou shalt not engage in religiously motivated wars to steal land or capture and hold Jerusalem, nor burn heretics and witches, nor buy beat and own slaves, nor treat women as if they alone are responsible for the sin in the Garden,” and said it enough that there would be no mistaking what he wanted? If God knew his people are sinful and that they could possibly twist what we read in the Bible then why not do the reasonable thing here?
Layman said…A very good, and easily read, book on the Crusades is, The New Concise History of the Crusades, by Thomas F. Madden.
Thanks.
Notice that there are two Andrews here and they seem to always show up together. Odd, wouldn't you say? One defending the other by appearing to be his evil twin.
I do not buy it. Just look at the time stamps. The second Andrew was here in a heatbeat after I commented about the first Andrew, and now they're both flooding DC with comments.
Andrew you have no integrity at all. You're banned, you know it, and yet you still comment.
And if I'm posting comments in Andrew's name as he claims, then why do I also deleted them?
There seem a few independent sources...but maybe that was because it was a short and ignominious affair that attracted little serious analysis or comment at the time.
Appears that is was attempted but ended extremely badly and nowhere near the 'holy land'
A few reports suggest that slavery and accidental death...ships sinking etc....was their fate...a few apparently were rumored to have been taken to Baghdad and put to death after failing to see sense and recant their 'belief'...but it was obviously a rather sad and ignominious end to the nonsense whatever!
The actual crusade apparently was not sanctioned by the authorities at the time...but the rapture were on the erstwhile mini-crusaders and they did that thang anyhow...
A salutary point about belief taken to extremes maybe...
When a few stragglers did make it home up to several years later and related the various shenanigans on the trip...the father of one of the protagonists...Nicholas...was taken out and hanged for encouraging his son into such reckless wastage of the life and limb of a generation!
Jonathan Riley-Smith was professor of Church history at Duke University before moving to Oxford.
Dr. Riley-Smith is to the Crusades as Shelby Foote is to the Civil War!
Amazon has a number of his titles in stock on the Crusades.
Post a Comment