Were the Crusades religiously motivated? John Dickson in his excellent book Bullies and Saints shows they were. He cites Raymond of Aguilers, a chaplain of the First Crusade tragically celebrating the massacre at the Al-Aqsa Mosque as the ‘renewal of our faith.’ John Dickson also shares words from Pope Urban II who was a key instigator in the First Crusade. So, were they religiously motivated? Absolutely. But, what I think is very significant, and is never commented on, is that the beliefs that drove the First Crusade forward were not Christian. Which means, the First Crusade was not a Christian Crusade. Something crucial is at stake here.

Pope Urban II was the champion and chief rabble-rouser for the Crusades. He appallingly taught:

 “Whoever for devotion alone, not to gain honour or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God can substitute this journey for all penance.’ (page 1, Bullies and Saints)

Regarding Pope Urban's sermon that officially launched the First Crusade, John Dickson writes:

‘The central theme was clear: with full papal blessing, this war was not sinful but redemptive. Any pilgrim willing to go to the east, fight the Muslims, and reclaim Jerusalem for the Lord would receive pardon for sins and the promise of salvation.‘ (page 6)

John Dickson lays the Crusades at the feet of Christians. And yet, it seems theology has been thrown out the window. I understand that we’d call the First Crusaders Christians for they arose out of Christendom and they certainly weren’t Hindus, Muslims or Atheists. But, nor were they Christians.

That’s a bold call, I know. But consider this for a moment, if the beliefs of the Crusaders were not Christian, then they were not motivated by Christianity, but by something else entirely. And whatever this something else is, it is not incidental. It drove the First Crusade.

Consider the quotes above. In them Pope Urban teaches that a person is saved by doing what the Church requires. What the Church required was the Crusade. And if done, no penance is required. Sin is pardoned. This directly opposes what the Bible teaches. It is not Christian teaching.

It denies the once-for-all, sacrificial and atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  Christ died for sin, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God. (1 Peter 3:18) It is trust in Christ and his work on the cross that saves. And this alone.

Assuming JD’s summaries accurately reflect Pope Urban’s theology, not only has the Pope ripped salvation out of the grasp of his hearers, but he is teaching something other than Christianity. For where there is no true understanding and teaching of the cross and all it achieved there is no true Christianity. Where there is no crucifixion Christianity has been poured out on the ground.

Whole Creeds and countless Bible passages could be cited for proof. But let me quote just two, that are justly famous.

 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans chapter 5 verse 8, NIV)

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John chapter 3 verse 16, NIV)

And since the work of the cross was absent in Pope Urban's teaching it is no surprise that the Christian life in the pattern of Christ was destroyed. What Jesus wanted was for his followers to lay down their lives, even for their enemies, just like he did. Instead, the Christian life, as defined by the Crusade call, is to put to death your enemies (and the church’s) to ensure your salvation. Something very dark and clotted filled the void once the pattern of the cross was removed.

If what was believed and acted on was not Christian, then those doing it were not Christians. This isn’t true for all Christian doctrine. Some things are secondary beliefs. But it is true for the teaching on the work of Jesus and the Cross. It defines who is Christian and who is not. This is so essential a point, I’m very surprised John Dickson didn’t address it in some way. He is no theological slouch. (And yes, I recognise that in some ways the whole book addresses the issue. But I don’t think directly enough.)

Religion may have motivated the First Crusade. But this religion was Christian heresy and so, not Christian at all. I know this might seem like I’m just trying to split theology hairs in order to defend Christians from the accusation of the Crusades. But that isn’t what is motivating me at all.

What really matters is that when true Christian teaching is lost and something is taught in its place the results are wretched. Under Pope Urban II the Church was teaching things that explicitly denied the words of Christ. Christ taught that the Christian is to love their enemies, be a servant of all, to not seek revenge. No wonder wickedness flowed in the First Crusade. No wonder the church was no longer holy, it had walked away from the Holy One, Jesus.

The other truth that flows from this, and it is a sobering one, is that what we believe about spiritual matters, the nature of God and reality matters. These beliefs profoundly shape what we do as individuals, communities and nations. In the future, people will look back on the 21st Century and be appalled at how some of us lived. And we’ll have lived the way we did because of what we believed to be right, true and good, whether those beliefs were defined as religious or otherwise.