James White vs The Crusades

James White has definitely been a focal point of controversy lately. After many Christians defended him from malicious attacks from the cohost of the Steve Deace Show, White returned to countersignaling younger Christians who are more Reformed than he is. Taking a break from going after Thomas Aquinas, James White attacked Christian support of the crusades in a lengthy, historically reductive diatribe.

James White writes:

OK, for the folks who are still going, “What on earth?” The Crusades did not stop the expansion of Islam. In fact, they were not intended to. That was done the old fashioned way: armies, representing nations, fighting against other armies.

James White begins arguing that the Crusades did not stop the advance of Islam, and claimed that the armies of nations are what did that. White presupposes that the standing armies are legitimate while the Crusades illegitimate. This is how he would logically distinguish the Battle of Tours from the Seige of Antioch. However, this is an inaccurate recollection of how the Crusades, specifically the First Crusade, were initiated. Before the Pope gave a rousing speech, the Eastern Roman Emperor made ample preparations and pleaded with the West for support. The West, mainly comprised of Frankish knights and nobility answered the call. In short, the First Crusade was initially an auxiliary or advanced force for the national army that James White presupposed to be the legitimate alternative to crusading. The subsequent crusades had established Crusader states which also meet White’s criteria.

The sacking of Constantinople by “Crusaders” (all done on the basis of money and politics) actually hastened the fall of that last bastion holding back the Muslim expansion westward. Disastrous.

Obviously, the Fourth Crusade, the Sacking of Constantinople in 1204, was disastrous. There was treachery on all sides. The Eastern Romans never truly recovered, although the Eastern Romans were the Cleveland Browns of world powers, always in a rebuilding year. Those who defend the Crusades are not defending the Fourth Crusade. They are primarily celebrating those who fought in the First and Third Crusades. Moreover, James White is factually incorrect in stating that Constantinople was the bastion holding back the Muslim advance westward. There were multiple Islamic incursions into Europe: the Iberian Peninsula, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Eurasian steppe. 

But folks, listen, please. Have you seen the images these (mainly) young men are posting? What do you see in them all? Yes, the cross, prominently displayed on the armor of men slashing and hacking the infidel to pieces. The Crusades were definitionally religious in nature. I know, I know, Rome was quite involved in politics and the like by that time, and very corrupt. No question about it. But, here’s the point: they joined religion to their avarice and thirst for power. They promised eternal life to those who died fighting the infidel! The entire foundation was a fundamental and outright denial of the nature, efficacy, and truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What completely and utterly shocks me is that outside of the Romanists who are promoting this stuff (ironically, against the views of their own Pope), the majority of the wild-eyed zealots I am seeing are Reformed! Well, they claim to be, anyway. I truly wonder how anyone with a semi-formed theology that is even slightly Reformed can buy into this stuff. But the fact is these folks are saying the Crusades did not go “far enough.” Far enough in what? Blaspheming Christ? Disparaging the gospel? Promoting hatred? What would you like to see more of, exactly? What would be “far enough”?

When Martin Luther criticizes the Crusades, he points out that the Papacy is not serious about crusading, rather they were serious about collecting indulgences from Germany, specifically in reference to fighting the Turks. Luther argues that the Pope had ample means to fund a defense against the Turks without extortion. While White would ultimately be closer to agreement with Luther on this point, Luther’s criticisms of the Crusades advance the sentiment that the Crusades could have gone much farther than they did.

In conclusion, the history of the Crusades is complex and multifaceted. It’s important to engage in thoughtful and nuanced discussions when examining historical controversies, rather than resorting to oversimplification or misrepresentation of facts, as employed by James White.