I WRITE in response to David Lawson’s letter published in the weekend edition of the Zululand Observer.
Although I agree with him that any genocide, of any kind, is an inexcusable act and a blemish on the reputation of society, I do have some differences of opinion regarding the crusades and other violent historical campaigns to convert native peoples.
The majority of people who participated in crusades, whether one is referring to the ‘English Crusades’ or any other violent crusade, were lawless people.
Following a ruler who had gone astray, they had either gone astray themselves, or were afraid of losing their own lives if they did not participate.
And, the very precept that these men were Christians could be very easily challenged by their actions. One of the main beliefs of Christianity is that, once one has been saved, one will bear good fruit, refraining from doing what one knows is wrong and constantly striving to do better.
These men, however, were lawless and Godless. They raped, stole, plundered and murdered. Are these the actions of someone who has truly been saved?
As Christians we believe that is our duty to ‘teach the Gospel to all the nations,’ however, the very foundations of the Gospel would render it senseless to go on a violent rampage, whereby any person who refuses to ‘convert’ to Christianity is killed,
They would not be believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, they would be believing in the surety of death at the hands of their captors if they did not claim to believe in the Gospel.
The point that I am trying to make is that not all members of a certain religion are going to stick to the main teachings of that religion, and if they don’t, then there probably is no reason to judge the entire religion by that group of people.
In this case, the Crusaders, the Conquistadors, and others of their creed cannot be used as a yardstick to measure all of Christianity. They had gone astray, and their actions are not our actions and their beliefs are not our beliefs.
JOHAN E VILJOEN
