Righteousness: 1) Life lived as Christ lives. 2) Conformance to the will of God. 3) Recognition of the self as the image of Christ.

Faith: 1) Submission [passive - being conquered, being submitted] to the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Grace: 1) God’s recognition of Christ’s image in us.

Love: 1) Seeking to do for others what Christ has done for us. 2) Concern for the well-being of others and striving to achieve that well-being whether or not it amounts to some perceived benefit or profit for ourselves.

We have not lived life after the manner of Christ’s life. We daily contradict the will of God by thinking thoughts that Christ doesn’t think, in saying the kinds of things Christ doesn’t say, and in treating other people in ways Christ does not treat them. We recognize ourselves and locate our identity in all manner of things besides Christ; we prefer all kinds of concepts, heroes, or dreams in place of Christ. This way of life necessarily leads to death. Fortunately, God always seeks the well-being of his creation and works to achieve our well-being, at any cost to himself. The cost of our well-being was the life of Christ who willingly went to his own death for our sake and who came to life again by God’s power over life and death. Because of this, God recognizes Christ instead of the images we choose for ourselves. God submits us to the reality of what Christ has done for our well-being.

Therefore, we are completely free to be concerned for the well-being of others. We are free to strive to achieve the well-being of others whether or not it amounts to some kind of good we believe might result in doing for others what Christ does for us.

First-world problems – little, insignificant issues that upset the relative ease and smoothness with which we go about doing our daily routine. They are the annoying things you hear college students complaining about over the phone as they saunter on to class. They are the substance of pissy Facebook statuses. They are the bane of Generation Y; first-world problems suck all the fun out of everything.

These memes work because they allow us to scoff at the ignorance of our peers, the very same first-worlders who have not yet come to realize, as we have, that there are starving people in Central America, Africa, and Asia. These memes also convict us and mirror even the most charity-driven, mission-trip-inspired hipster Christian of the 21st Century. As much as we cry out for “Social Justice” or “Peace” or “A Brotherhood of Man,” we know that, in day-to-day life apart from our classroom’s first-world convictions, the ratio of chips to dip is more important and more worrisome than anything else.

Now it is easy enough to simply take the condition of our society and our generation and call it a “lost cause,” it is easy enough to write off our own little first-world issues and our own inability to cope with them as the “adventure of life” where “what you learn from the journey and the journey itself” is “more important than the destination.” It’s easy to inflate a worldview with absolutely no values. We are, for the most part, champions of a cheap, disinterested nickle-and-dime nihilism.

What is nihilism? You may have heard one thing or another. You might have been in a philosophy class Freshman year, learning about Nietzsche or Sarte (neither of whom were “nihilists” in the way most people understand the idea). Maybe you got your nihilism expertise from the Big Lebowski, and the word conjures for you images of overweight, high-class nobodies laying half-naked in an inner-tube, crisping in the sun without a care in the world. Whatever your exposure to nihilism, I think most people would sum it up by saying, “Nihilism is not caring about anything.”

This, I think, is a misunderstanding of what nihilism actually is. Nihilism is just this: The rejection of the value of abstractions. What this means is nihilists aren’t necessarily people who don’t care about politics or what’s on TV, nihilists are people who will not put stock in what Westerners traditionally call abstract ideas; that is, nihilists consider notions like ethics, love, hope, truth, freedom, slavery, God, beauty, goodness, etc… to be absolutely worthless by any practical standard. The only things that matter are what we see and what we need. A nihilist can care about almost anything, so long as the justification for doing so is practical, physical, or need-driven.

I think there is a tragic, inherent flaw in this.

Think about the questions, “Why should I care?” or, “What does it matter?” At some point, the answers to these questions will require an abstraction. Even if the question is applied to some basic need like food or shelter, you can push it back and back to an abstraction.

“You need to eat.”

“Why? What does it matter if I don’t?”

“You won’t be healthy.”

“What does it matter?”

“You won’t survive.”

“What does it matter?”

How do you answer this without making an abstract argument about the value of life or happiness or community or some such thing? I have doubts as to whether you can make such existentially necessary arguments for human stability without abstraction. So long as someone is willing to ask the question, “Why?” there will always be the need for abstraction. And we first-worlders are very good at asking “Why?”

We have also become increasingly talented at reducing the variety of values, joys, and intentions that human beings are capable of experiencing to a strikingly small assortment of recycled virtues. This is nickle-and-dime nihilism: The propensity for human beings to reduce their set of values or virtues. Our own generation has this down pat. What is the supreme value of Generation Y? What is the answer to the question “Why should I care?” It is fun. Fun is our last, best value. Among all the emotions, wonders, and mysteries of human being, we have elected (or inherited) fun to be our defining “reason-for-being.” In essence fun = survival. A life without fun is a life not worth living.

And therein is the great danger of nickle-and-dime nihilism and general nihilism in all its forms. It is, I think, a kind of soul-sickness. As an idea it swallows up all other philosophical problems, as a way of life it is deadly to body and soul. If ever there is one thing you take from what I have to say, let it be this: Stand with courage in defiance of nihilism. Expand your reasons for doing things, find answers to the questions, “Why should I care?” and, “What does it matter?” that surpass what you already know. There is a lot to life, a lot that is full of surprising joy, and there is a lot that is difficult; but in the whole of it life is its own purpose, after all, by the grace of God. Don’t allow yours to be a juxtaposition of first-world problems and first-world values. Don’t reduce your reasons, expand them – take courage and live as Christ, you are free enough to do so.

In answer to this, I want to convince you that there is no special cause to be an apologist in our time as any other, and that the same Christ who defines us today was as offensive, as tasteless, in the first century as he is now. I also want to describe what it means to “defend the faith” and convince you that it needs no degree in philosophy to do so.

Here is the famous passage that I think of when I hear about “defending the faith”:

κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου, συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλεῖσθε καταισχυνθῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν. (1 Peter 3:15-16)

…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (ESV)

Venerate (hallow, set apart, recognize as holy) the Lord Christ in your hearts, and always be ready for a defense unto everyone asking you for a reason concerning the hope in you, yet with gentleness (meekness, reservation, hidden but useful strength) and fear, having a good conscience; so that, [while] you are being accused (being spoken against, being put to the test, being challenged), they may be ashamed, [that is] the ones who are insulting out of spite your good manner of life in Christ. (my translation)

First off, I think it may be valuable to remember that these words were not addressed to theologians or academics or other apostles. They were addressed to Christians in, “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” These words are for people living in the midst of their enemies. It seems to me that any Christian can find him or herself in the midst of his or her enemies. These words are for any Christian. It isn’t only for pastors and heavyweight apologists to venerate Christ in their hearts, and it isn’t for these alone to be ready for those who live without hope to ask about hope.

What this passage does not address is a run-down of arguments that can be used to “prove” the existence of God, condemn the one asking to Hell, or philosophically undermine the presuppositions of someone who spitefully insults the life of faith. The passage, I think, defines “apologetics” as this:

1. Having a good conscience in the manner of life one lives.

2. Being humble.

I suspect both of these qualifications are satisfied in Christ. By this I mean anyone who goes about living as God lives, loving as Christ loved, as we have been put right to do in Christ, is a fine apologist without ever having to have said anything in the first place.

And as for the “defense” that we should be prepared to give, I see no reason why answering the question, “Why do you believe that bullshit?” with, “Because it’s true.” should not be as good a reason as any.

Here is the final point I want to make: Conversion is not our business. It is God’s business. “Giving a reason for the hope in you” is not necessarily “Converting those who spite your manner of life.” If the reason you recite for the hope you have in Christ is truth, then you have done as much as the mightiest debater among us.

What I want to do is convince you (if you aren’t already convinced of this) that love (i.e. – that which God makes us capable of doing in Christ), is not at all “passive” but “active.” In other words, love is not something that happens to people (whether or not we are speaking in terms of romance, friendship, or community); rather, it is something that people can and should do. In order to convince you, I shall let these words stand for themselves, I doubt I would want to say anything apart from what they do. Perhaps at another time I will write more. But now I’m about to learn about neurotransmitters and disorders of the nervous system and my professor is glaring at me…..

καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν (Luke 6:32)

And if you love the ones who are loving you, what grace is it for you? Indeed, sinners also love those who love them.

Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη οὐ ζηλοῖ ἡ ἀγάπη οὐ περπερεύεται οὐ φυσιοῦται (1 Cor 13:4)

Love perseveres. It is being kind. Love does not envy. Love does not brag about itself. It does not inflate itself.

οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς οὐ παροξύνεται οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν (1 Cor 13:5)

Nor is it being indecent. It does not seek its own things. It is does not arouse (sharpen, provoke hard feelings). It does not conclude evil things.

οὐ χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ (1 Cor 13:6)

It does not rejoice on the basis of unrighteousness; rather, it rejoices with the truth.

πάντα στέγει πάντα πιστεύει πάντα ἐλπίζει πάντα ὑπομένει (1 Cor 13:7)

It bears it all. It believes it all. It hopes it all. It endures it all.

Ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι καταργηθήσονται εἴτε γλῶσσαι παύσονται εἴτε γνῶσις καταργηθήσεται (1 Cor 13:8)

Love does not ever fail, even if prophesies should be done away with, even if languages should cease, even if knowledge should be done away with.

Ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους (John 13:34)

A new commandment I give you: That you should love one another. Just as I loved you, so also should you love one another.

As it is, in times of silence, when the mind is refreshed, clearer perspective sometimes rises out of old muck. In this short post, I would like to present one of my dearest perspectives. It was this strange philosophy that was all the difference for me. Before I get into it I want to give you a very brief background into where the idea of Christian Absurdism comes from.

In the 19th century, a somewhat obscure Danish philosopher named Søren Kierkegaard wrote on the concept of the Absurd. Later, in the 20th century,  Albert Camus took the idea and gave it his own spin. For Kierkegaard, the Absurd is taking the Truth as it is even when reason, logic, rationality, and all such human things resist Truth. For Kierkegaard, faith is an absurdity that makes a human being capable of being authentically him or herself before God. For Camus, the Absurd is a human being’s desire to have meaning and purpose, to define the universe and bring it under human dominion, when all that the universe offers is meaninglessness and lifelessness. Camus thought the human condition was absurd; that is, our desire for meaning in this world is a very strange thing indeed when all the world defies meaning.

In both cases, the Absurd can be understood as a determined desire to move forward in the face of futility. This, I think, is the core notion of the Absurd. It is defiance of futility and defiance of despair (even while despairing).

Now in both the case of Kierkegaard and Camus, it may well be said that neither these concepts really describe the human being’s place in relation to Truth. That is, our world is not absurd when you take what God has said as the world itself. God has created a rational, meaningful, purposed world – to call it “absurd” is to deny God’s design and insult God’s wisdom.

But the wisdom of God is foolishness to us. What human being of his or her own accord can stomach Truth without repulsion?

And who has kept the commandments handed down to us without failing? Who has managed God’s design? Who has not contradicted the will of God in his or her intentions and actions?

The Truth is ridiculous in the world of human beings and it is impossible to draw life from Truth. Truth is absurd.

But, for the philosopher or the thinker who lives in the meaningless world and recognizes the absurdity of Truth, and who despairs because of it, God has made preparations. We have a God who makes the absurd into reality, a God who dies though immortal, who is three and one, who is truly man. And, above all, this God has put us right. Now these things, in themselves, are not the Absurd, though they are absurd to us. The real absurdity in it all, is to pick up and carry on with Truth even when all the world should accuse you of ignorance.

It is to seek to realize the Truth, to live as God lives, to believe what God says when he calls us a new creation, New Adams, little Christs in this world. It is hungering for righteousness with the full knowledge of sin; the recognition of life as its own purpose and glory when everywhere the grave beckons us. In short, it is delighting in life in spite of the world.

That is Christian Absurdism. It is nothing new, it is only a new name for an old idea expressed in a new language for people who have wandered through the bloodiest century in human history and, now, the emptiest century in human history. It is language for the despairing philosopher, the hopeless ponderer, the longing disbeliever.

In so many things, those human beings whose condition has been tempered with whatever their parents and authorities have called reason and rational, the Absurd is but around the corner for them. If the Truth can take shape as reasonable to all men, by the grace of God, it may also take shape as absurd to all men who are, in themselves, absurd.

‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.  (Zechariah 4:6)

I couldn’t resist taking another picture today while out running.  The wind changed directions and the scene altered significantly as the cross came into view as the flag yielded to the power of the wind.

On this National Day of Prayer (aka, Cinco de Mayo in 2011, A.D.), I am humbled by the power of prayer and am challenged to pray continually (I Thes 4:17) as Paul, Silas and Timothy encouraged the Thessalonians.

Today, two brothers encouraged me to pray continually and although I failed miserably, a thought kept surfacing in my mind that I profess emerged from my heart.  I have been attempting to talk myself out of sharing it but it keeps invading my mind and I simply have to let it go!

On my heart today is a simple prayer that the men reading this would seek to find a mentor and be a mentor.  For several years, I have sought a mentor and God placed a man in my life about a year ago who has truly served as a mentor for me.  He is an old fart.  In fact, last Monday, we celebrated his 60th birthday but he has both challenged and grown me in many and various ways.

My mentor – Gary – has a heart for men that have been incarcerated and he loves men in the way that I profess God calls us to love one another.  He started up a ministry titled Wingman a few years back, which I hope you seek to learn more about in clicking ‘Wingman’.

Please take the time to view the link and minimally read about the history of Wingman and if you have the time I would STRONGLY encourage you to listen to some of the downloads available on the site they are all very good, especially the Webber guy who got his doctorate from a St. Louis seminary that will go unnamed.

In conclusion, I was going to title this post from Portal to Wingman but I was uncertain if all that are reading this would familiar with the terminology.

When I use the phrase – Portal Ministry – some of you reading this know what it refers to and it is a ministry that I pray takes root and flourishes amongst the body of Christ and infects our culture in a most profound way.  I would challenge Chris and/or Bryan to give us an update on this work which has begun.

When I use the phrase – Man Church – some men reading this have experienced it as a potent, Gospel-centric, grace based, intergenerational ministry targeting men.  It is my prayer that it will be a ministry to men that continues at CUC and beyond.

Now, what if…..a bridge like Man Church linked the Portal and Wingman ministries?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm….

Men, may we lead, not by might, nor by power, but by His Spirit!  His Wind changes things!

However, based on the sermon I was blessed to hear yesterday, I find myself asking, did our team really win?  Well, I guess that question has to be preceded by a different question, whose team are you on?  If you are on Team America, you won.  Osama is dead.  By the way, I got a text last night and it said, Obama is dead and because I had already had the television on, I knew that it was simply a typo but what a difference that would have made as Team America would have lost as the morning headlines read, “Obama is dead, Osama ______”, you fill-in-the-blank.  If that were the case, then Team Jihad would have won.

Now, let me be clear, a part of me rejoices in the fact that Osama is dead; however, based on the sermon I heard yesterday and the truth I have learned and am learning contained in the Gospel, another part of me shutters at the fact that I rejoice in the death of another when I am called to love…when I am called to be a living sacrifice…when I am called not to conform to the pattern of the world but be transformed by the renewing of my mind.

Jesus, teach me truth and teach me to walk daily in it empowered by the Spirit!  Amen.

But before we get any further, let’s quickly clarify a few terms. When we say Calvinism, we mean to talk about theology that was shaped by the French reformer John Calvin in the 16th century. Whereas the ‘Reformed’ tradition relates to the people, churches and movements that are led and influenced by Calvinist theology. So now when we talk about ‘Resurging or New Calvinism’, we mean to speak of the current church movement within the Reformed tradition that is most clearly outlined by these guys over at what’s called ‘The Resurgence’

So, why all the hoopla and why does any of this even matter?

Well, here’s a few reasons to get the ball rolling…

1. Resurging Calvinism is the loudest, most effective and most well-adapting voice in the theological, Church and religious world.

Now before you fall off your chair in a full-blown, knee-jerk reaction of righteous anger…hear us out. You might think, “No, Calvinism is hardly attractive…I mean they’ve got weird things goin’ on with that whole predestination thing and Mark Driscoll…I mean, who listens to him?”

In short, we have to commend these guys in their ability and passion in making Christianity, with all its bells, whistles, doctrines, histories and implications into an easy-to-read manifesto for all mankind.

In a world that seems to be drowning in apathy, relativism, and simply a reality in which words don’t mean anything anymore; New Calvinism goes against the grain by attempting to be clear, concise and straight-forward not only in their theology, but in how each and every Christian ought to live, be moved and find purpose.

2. There has been, and is a growing relationship between the Reformed and Confessional Lutheran ‘tribes’ that also flows into this new movement of Reformed theology.

This Calvi-Luther dynamic duo has existed in various forms since the birth of the Reformation; whether it was the Crypto-Calvinists, Prussian Union or the hush-hush associations that exist today, there’s something beyond the surface that’s going on with these semper reformanda kin.

At the same time, this relationship is by no means free of tension, conflict and disagreement. Furthermore, what’s most interesting as well as pressing for our purposes is the tendency to talk past one another with regards to the issues that we might think are…well…’The Issues’.

It’s like an awkward grade-school friendship where one friend thinks that you’re best friends, and the other thinks you’re mere acquaintances…well, no worries, because we’re here to shine a light in the darkness and resolve this grade-school friendship fiasco…well…maybe.

3. The New Calvinist movement is leaving an impact in the wider community that will influence where other movements/traditions/tribes find themselves in relation to the wider community.

‘Wider community’ here means: everyone who isn’t confessional or Lutheran. It is a wider community. Much wider. So wide in fact this community numbers in the billions. So wide in fact that Confessional Lutherans are ‘one of the things not like the other.’ If what we suspect is true, then this resurging Reformed movement may eventually become the default image of what it means to be a Christian in the West (especially the U.S.) even if the majority of people calling themselves Christians are not reformed. This is simply because of the organization of the movement, the amount of material available to the public by New Calvinists, and their ability to address this time and culture in a way that sounds right to a lot of people.

No matter how many points of contention there are within the movement itself, New Calvinism has a definite identity, a definite voice, and a specific mission; therefore, New Calvinism is poised to be very influential in a culture that is without a frame of reference for common identity, voice, or mission. Even if Confessional Lutherans have identity, voice, and a mission that is all our own, and we cannot be who we are according to God’s definition in a culture that exists within the authority of God’s governance of reality, but according to our own definition as we have come to understand reality only through our identity, voice, and mission, then we will have defeated ourselves, regardless of how influencial we are. Remember, God’s influence is not at stake; our only concern here is to reveal God’s love to the world by whatever means we have.

What does it mean to be Confessional Lutheran in light of this growing movement? What are our big differences and why should we care?

1. In spite of the growing relationship between Reformed and Lutheran theologians, there are numerous points on which we disagree. And these points are, in many ways, tied to the rest of our respective ways of seeing and doing theology.

There are several points on which Lutherans and the Reformed will disagree. The two most important are probably: Glorious God vs. Gracious God and Rational God vs. Mysterious God.

For the Reformed, God is glorious and rational, and all other things are defined by those aspects of God. For Lutherans, God is first gracious and mysterious. These distinct ways of viewing God come from distinct frames of reference which are not Biblically conditioned, but which are conditioned by the value we place on rationality. There is enough in making this distinction for its own post, so we’ll save the full explanation of what’s going on in this conflict of perspective for a later post – suffice it to say that taking God’s glory as the motivation for Christ’s coming to us will have an influence on how one’s faith takes shape and taking God’s graciousness as the motivation for Christ’s coming to us will have a similarly powerful impact on faith, just as seeing God as rational over mysterious/mysterious over rational will also impact how we go about in the life of faith.

2. In spite of our rich tradition and our strong theology, we are still more concerned with ‘being right’ than ‘being truthful.’

In essence, I (This is John Klocke writing - Chris might have another way of saying this, another perspective, or a more tactful approach to discussing Lutheran problems – I’m just gonna bash you.) am bashing people who hold the Book of Concord over the Word of God here. Some of us, within our own tradition, have become so obsessed with the writings of men 500 years ago for men 500 years ago that we have forgotten that we have another set of writings from God for all human beings in all times. This is something that, perhaps, links us with the New Calvinist movement in a way you wouldn’t necessarily expect.

New Calvinism is equally concerned with ‘being right’ to the detriment of their mission. They have a rational explanation for everything even those things which God has not given to us for understanding in a way that is rational by Enlightenment standards. Similarly, Lutherans have a rational explanation for everything, so long as it is out of the Book of Concord or so long as it functions within Walther’s theses, even when these writings do nothing for really understanding the Sacraments, the nature of Christ, or the ways in which God accomplishes his will. Though our standards for rationality are different (Enlightenment foundationalism for New Calvinists and traditional theological writings for Confessional Lutherans), we are in equal danger of undermining our own source of knowledge about reality: the Bible. We should NOT compete over ‘being right’ based on our traditions, but we must all strive in being truthful based on God’s revelation of himself in Christ.

So, perhaps, it is more ‘confessional’ to be less ‘Confessional,’ if you take my meaning. Perhaps we, as Confessional Lutherans, need not be concerned with defending the Bible with our theological writings, perhaps our identity comes right out of Scripture rather than right out of some article in some book of some theological writing from half a millenium ago.

What is the response?

To be clear, we are not suggesting that those who call themselves Confessional Lutherans begin a competition with New Calvinism. The very last thing that should be done is to restart the old ‘pew-wars’ in our own minds. What we are calling for is open, honest communication and serious reflection on the points of contention that we share with the New Calvinist movement. We are also calling for greater unity within our own tradition at the cost of our extremely wasteful focus on matters which remain besides the point of life (contemporary vs. traditional worship; postmodernism vs. Lutheranism; Ft. Wayne vs. St. Louis). In a sense, this is a call to reframe our language, reassess what we have chosen to reject in the culture we find ourselves living in, and to restructure how we choose to interact with each other as Confessional Lutherans within that culture.

This post will be the first a series of posts discussing what it is to be confessional and Lutheran at the same time. To give you a brief preview of what we’ll be talking about, here is a video:

Next we’ll be discussing the mysteries of faith, both from the ‘non-rational’ and the ‘rational’ approaches to living in the world. Some of the other topics we hope to cover are: apologetics (defending the Christian faith as a Confessional Lutheran as opposed to defending the faith as a New Calvinist might), the life of faith (how does a Christian live and what makes us different from the world from the Confessional Lutheran perspective as opposed to the New Calvinist perspective), and the missional drive (the way a Confessional Lutheran might approach being a Christian in the world as opposed to the way a New Calvinist might).

Until then, grace and peace,

John Klocke

Chris Harrison

Absolutely key in understanding the proclamation of the Crusades (especially the First) is the background of the Church in Europe at this time.  The 11^th century was a period of religious revival as well as a period of intense violence.  This violence was a result of vendettas, disagreements between rival knights, heresies, and a host of other problems.  However, according to Jonathan Riley-Smith, this century was also marked by a historic number of churches being built, which is a sign of the general force of the Catholic Church at this time.[1] The Church was in a sense attempting to re-Christianize the masses, or to at least to greater establish a love of piety in them.  The times were indeed soaked in blood, and the Church was naturally concerned about this constant violence.  The Church saw that violence would take place regardless of how “monkish” the laity became, but she still took steps to control the violence and to lesson it in some way.  Perhaps the most important step would be the one called the “Peace of God” or “The Corresponding Truths of God” whereby the Church (attempted) to control violence by limiting the times and places where one could fight.[2]  This regulation of violence did not serve to stop it, but rather simply gave men a set of rules with which to kill each other.  After all, the fact that a game has some limiting rules sometimes makes it more worthwhile to play and actually encourages the playing of it.  This regulation of violence is a rather revealing sign of how the Crusades would answer the question of a layman’s vocation.

I see this fulfillment of vocation as perhaps the central reason for the justification of the Crusades.  Jonathan Riley-Smith writes that, “It is as though society was yearning for a means of expressing its beliefs in the only way it knew”.[3]  Of course, “the only way it knew” means violence and battle; thus, in a way the idea of Crusades came naturally for mediaeval knights and other men used to war.  The vocation of the clergy was naturally to be near to God, to shepherd His people, and to uphold His Church.  With the new religious revival during and following the 11^th century, though, the laity wished to incorporate pious values into their everyday lives.  However, it would seem impossible to live a monastic life as a knight; one cannot devote hours to prayer, fasting, worshipping, and meditation when one has violent duties to perform.  A knight’s life would seem too busy to incorporate such piety as the reformers were preaching.  It would take integration and a change of perspectives to recognize the vital righteous, godly, and vocation-fulfilling act of, well, killing people.  Urban II was a key player in this integration as he came from the influential monastery at Cluny and so was immersed in the new steps being taken in the 11^th century to reach out to the laity.[4]  Urban’s preaching, as well as the preaching of other crusade apologists (e.g. Peter the Hermit, St. Bernard of Clairvaux) acted as apologies to the violent lives men were used to living.  The preaching stirred hearts that were waiting to be stirred, encouraged Christian soldiers who were waiting to be encouraged, and convinced men of the need for a crusade in a specific place at a specific time.

The Crusades were justified simply because they seemed such an obvious answer to the problem of Islam and the problem of integrating faith with warfare.  With a wealth of theological apologies for violence found in the writings of the Church Fathers, with the Peace of God, and with the natural two-fold desire to both defend the Greek Christians and to free Jerusalem, the Crusades seemed to be an absolute necessity for the Church to undertake, and perhaps most importantly, with the Crusades the laity could now serve God as any member of the clergy would and they could fulfill their vocation as well.

I suppose the real question would now be, “Are the crusaders to blame for such a violent period in history?”  I think to answer this question we need to re-examine what a vocation is in the first place.  I see a vocation as whatever one does in life to the glory, honor, and love of both Christ and neighbor.  Ecclesiastes does state, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom”.[5] And Paul writes, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord and not for men”.[6]  These are not the only verses in Scripture that encourage working with passion and love; the crusaders thus saw their fighting as service to God, for it was consecrated to Him and for the benefit of the imperiled Greek Christians.  Thus the actual preaching of the Crusades was perhaps a response to the question of vocation present in men’s minds during the middle ages.  The desire to serve Christ was present, and the Crusades offered an outlet or a focus to this love.

Nowadays the Crusades are misconstrued and taught incorrectly as Christianity’s hate and intolerance of Islam or Christian crusaders’ desire for land and riches.  Certainly hatred was a part of some people’s reason for crusading just as there were certainly some people who went to the Holy Land in search of earthly rather than heavenly riches.  However, I think crusading was a search for identity in the Body of Christ.  This identity turned out to be a mix of warrior and saint, of soldier and monk.  At the heart of a desire to pilgrimage or a desire to defend Christendom is a desire to know who one is before God.  I think that every Christian struggles with his or her “calling” in life; some struggle with this until death or old age when the answer is discovered, and some never figure it out.  If I am myself, and I exist in this time and in this place, then what must I do and how must I live?  This existential question does lie at the heart of our faith because our faith only exists as long as we exist, and it has meaning if we give it importance.  However, the men of the Middle Ages perhaps thought that their faith was nullified by their jobs as knights or soldiers.  The crusades in a way were gifts to laity as practical ways to physically display faith and to “take up the cross” and follow Jesus Christ.

Thus, if the question of vocation is central to an understanding of the crusaders, and an understanding of the crusaders is central to an understanding of the Crusades, then this time period would seem to be an era of questioning one’s role in life before God.  Men and women are just as confused now (if not more confused) as the crusaders were when it comes to vocation.  Does a man have to be a pastor or missionary or teacher in order to serve Christ?  That is a question commonly heard today and struggled with today.  As strange as it seems, a person can serve Christ and his neighbor just as heroically and diligently as an auto mechanic than a seminary professor or even a Crusader.

The Crusades then, were justified because the vocation of warrior in Christ was justified and made sense according to the prevailing thought of the era.  The preaching was so effective for the simple fact that the call to arms was the right outlet for this violence and love in the hearts of the Christians at that time.  Now, of course most of the Crusaders did not take up the cross just in order to fight; the fighting needed to be legitimate and godly, and the popes and clergy during the time period made sure the Crusades were legitimate and holy, even if they were not.  We must not only work with all our might to the glory of Christ, but we must remember the Crusaders, as examples of men who lived out their faith and who perhaps should have served Christ in other ways not soaked in blood.  Perhaps we can learn both positives and negatives from them.

I was actually surprised to hear him voice the latter position; that his religious foundation has nothing to do with how he believes the world to actually work. Rather, paganism is a creative and spiritual ‘outlet’ for him and nothing more.

If you’ve had the pleasure of flippin’ the TV on in the past 24 hours, you’ve probably been met with flashing graphics and urgent messages plastered across the studios of any major network that read something like ‘U.S. Government Shut-down Count-down’ or ‘Government Shut-down Imminent’…

Fantastic.

It’s one thing to joke about how Americans run on hysteria…it’s another to try and keep the TV on for an hour without yelling back it. Nonetheless, internal collapse or not, this very hour, this very day points us back to the question of who this God is and what he actually does within our reality.

Ultimately, religion is the question of who and what governs reality. In Christianity, it entails the understanding that this God actually does something amidst his creation, that at the end of the day, he holds the sinews and fabric of reality together. Much more so, there’s this Christ character of whom the scriptures actually confess as binding together the very nature of reality…of all of what we know, see, hear, smell and taste.

And not only do we speak of God as the source of our reality in this vague, spiritual talk, but also in specific, unique movements of history. Consider the cross and how this sacrifice alters not only the course of human history, but the very nature of reality itself…this is our confession this is our reality.

And yet so often our perception and trust in this reality-binding Christ looks more like cultural paganism than confessional Christianity.

Brothers and sisters, we are promised and called to peace, not hysteria…to adoration, not paganism. Let us fix our eyes on the substance of what matters, not on the shadows of what has already passed.

At the end of the day, this Christian confession is simply a statement of how reality functions and under whose sovereignty all is held together.

May you rest in that.