True. I wanted to give some background to the otherside of the argument, because the vast majority of the literature is from the perspective of those opposed to the idea of military orders.
I figured you might be up to something like that. However, the serious and embedded opposition at the time is very interesting; they were not modern Christians nor were they non-violent men. Modern Christians seem to know so little of the History of Christianity…it’s appalling, really. The vague mondern notion that once upon a time they were bad Christians, but NOW we are more gooder Christians… Really? Is the degraded moral condition wherein you will not use violence at all truly a better condition?
The combination of monk and soldier was a winning trick.
I had considered drawing attention to the otherside of the argument, but I didn't want to drag the essay out any longer. I think some of the opposition (especially to the later Crusades) had legs to stand on.
I do believe that the overall argument for the use of force in defense of the faith is completely valid.
Thanks, it appears to me that instead of trying to understand the role of violence in within a Christian framework the modern Church as decide to try and "go a long, to get a long."
The only way to turn things back is to bring men back into the faith, but in order to do that we have to rediscover the role of men within the church. If not, we will lose them to the vitalist.
I notice that the examples used to justify christian war are all found in the old testament. Where in the new testament does Jesus call christians to war? No matter how you contort it, verses about blessing those who curse you, turning the other cheek, and carrying your conqueror's loads an extra mile are not the rallying cry of a warrior. Or is it more likely that european martial culture was a thing apart from Christianity, a leftover from a pagan past, and Christianity finally killed it? Blessed are those who are persecuted in my name, the meek shall inherit the earth, love those who despise you. Luke 22:36 does a lot of heavy lifting for the Muscular Christian. None of this is to say Christians should be weak pacifists. Be lions, not lambs. But don't pretend the Jesus called you to war.
Maybe we need epee' duels, won when a duelist or his second determined sufficient blood was drawn. We would need elaborate rules and ceremonies around them.
There was a great deal of controversy in the Medieval period when the concept of fighting monks came about. Many were solidly opposed to it.
True. I wanted to give some background to the otherside of the argument, because the vast majority of the literature is from the perspective of those opposed to the idea of military orders.
I figured you might be up to something like that. However, the serious and embedded opposition at the time is very interesting; they were not modern Christians nor were they non-violent men. Modern Christians seem to know so little of the History of Christianity…it’s appalling, really. The vague mondern notion that once upon a time they were bad Christians, but NOW we are more gooder Christians… Really? Is the degraded moral condition wherein you will not use violence at all truly a better condition?
The combination of monk and soldier was a winning trick.
I had considered drawing attention to the otherside of the argument, but I didn't want to drag the essay out any longer. I think some of the opposition (especially to the later Crusades) had legs to stand on.
I do believe that the overall argument for the use of force in defense of the faith is completely valid.
Excellent essay John. There is much that needs to be rediscovered, and this essay touched on an important one.
Tolerance needn’t be culturally suicidal.
Thanks, it appears to me that instead of trying to understand the role of violence in within a Christian framework the modern Church as decide to try and "go a long, to get a long."
The only way to turn things back is to bring men back into the faith, but in order to do that we have to rediscover the role of men within the church. If not, we will lose them to the vitalist.
I notice that the examples used to justify christian war are all found in the old testament. Where in the new testament does Jesus call christians to war? No matter how you contort it, verses about blessing those who curse you, turning the other cheek, and carrying your conqueror's loads an extra mile are not the rallying cry of a warrior. Or is it more likely that european martial culture was a thing apart from Christianity, a leftover from a pagan past, and Christianity finally killed it? Blessed are those who are persecuted in my name, the meek shall inherit the earth, love those who despise you. Luke 22:36 does a lot of heavy lifting for the Muscular Christian. None of this is to say Christians should be weak pacifists. Be lions, not lambs. But don't pretend the Jesus called you to war.
That is a fair criticism.
I have written on this before, I do not believe it is that simple.
https://open.substack.com/pub/becomingnoble/p/youre-called-to-be-meek-that-doesnt?r=1pazbp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
“For many, myself included, one of the most significant barriers to engaging with today’s Church is its overly passive, often feminized nature. “
This dilemma has caused men to loose interest or have no interest in attending church.
Often a overweight or skinny effeminate pastor in skinny jeans is behind the pulpit stirring emotions while often times crying himself.
Complete opposite of say a Billy Graham of days gone past.
Maybe we need epee' duels, won when a duelist or his second determined sufficient blood was drawn. We would need elaborate rules and ceremonies around them.
The forgotten tradition of the Warrior.
Excellent work. 🙏