Apparently they are, according to the chaplain to the Bishop of Blackburn, according to this report http://www.secondspring.co.uk/course/termtwo.htm in The Church of England Newspaper.

'Canon Gray says: “Behind modern fanatical Islamic terrorism lie many spiritual and religious passions and narratives also found in the Christian tradition.

“Blind Samson, his hairy growth returning, commits an act of suicidal terrorism as he destroys the pillars of the pagan temple. The people of Israel sing their song of triumph — which we echo in the Easter Vigil — as the bodies of the Egyptians float in the Red Sea.” Canon Gray, a former team vicar in the Lichfield diocese, goes on: “We cannot simply ignore the violent passion of Jesus cleansing the temple with whips. We are never told of the collateral damage possibly resulting from his actions. In the Christians tradition we rejoice over the passionate commitment and bloody deaths of numerous martyrs.” The one-time curate in Scarborough adds: “We need to consider deeply the fact that the same religious passion and spiritual single-mindedness lies at the heart of a London bomber and a Christian crusader.'

I think he is more than a little confused about exactly what a suicide bomber is doing, compared to, say, a prisoner of war, like Sampson, escapees being pursued by a military force, like the Israelites, or someone laying about with a whip made of cords, like Christ!

But does he have a point, or is this a good example of why the Anglican Communion around the globe is in trouble?

A good example of why the Anglican Communion around the globe is in trouble.

He is either being extremely lateral or is horribly confused.

"I think he is more than a little confused about exactly what a suicide bomber is doing, compared to, say, a prisoner of war, like Sampson, escapees being pursued by a military force, like the Israelites, or someone laying about with a whip made of cords, like Christ!"

...Israelite escapees saved by God's intervention and naturally joyous. Further, the Martyrs were not suicide bombers. They were slaughtered for preaching Christian belief. His final example is the crusades where the Middle East (the cradle of Christianity)was captured by the sword and the armies marched onward taking North Africa, Asia Minor, Turkey and most of Spain. As they were normal wars not suicide bombings or terrorist attacks they were more comparable with World War II when one side with a belief system refused to be overthrown by another side with a different belief system.

His comparisons make no sense.

In some ways I have to agree with the title.

To the extent that the Crusaders departed from the fundamental concept of 'loving your enemies' and ran headlong down the track of a massive bloodbath and brutality they were clearly outside the Will of God.
"Stop" your enemies, don't Stop and STOMP them. "Reasonable force"

In terms of Romans 13, it is abundantly clear, that God establishes authorities. The Authorities Paul refers to were the Roman. They were established by war.

The Crusades were a mixed bag. Mixed motives, Mixed objectives, and many MANY mixed up people. (e.g. the Childrens crusade)

But given the expansion of the Islamic Empire, and threat to Christendom I feel it was indeed an Act of God, in the wider providential sense which stirred up the first Crusade.

The implementation and motivation was very questionable. In many cases, Princes were lured with the promise of territory and treasure, and in other cases it was a more spiritual basis.

But to link the action of the Crusades to the various events and personalities in the Old Testament and then to the one violent act of Jesus which was specifically to fullfill a prophecy is to totally misunderstand the Biblical picture.

Jesus could have taken violent action ANY time...... "Do you not know that I can call upon legions of Angels".

The more important goal should be to gain a true picture of both the Islamic and Christian views of war.

For the Muslim, as for Mohammed, violence is a means of extending 'Dar Ul Islam' "land of Islam" but for the Christian it NEVER can be.

The kingdom of God is inside, within us, "my kingdom is not of this world, if it was, my followers would fight to defend me" ... is key here.

This does not exclude the need for a Christian Emperor to raise an army and fight an enemy, but that has NOTHING to do with establishing the Kingdom of God.

David you have raised many issues in analysing the pros and cons of the crusades and I agree on many points. However, even if your conclusion that the crusades cannot be lumped together with Sampson and Jesus is correct and they were just another war potentially characterisable as a brutal bloodbath can you please explain how that makes Crusaders like London bombers? Enthusiastically killing as many innocent civilians as possible, even if it means getting yourself killed, when there is no war is surely a different kettle of fish from a bloodbath during a war.

You do realize that, apart from keeping most of Europe and stopping the rapid decline in its territory, Christendom didn't do well in the Crusades? The Middle East (the cradle of Christianity) may have bounced back and forth but it ended up mainly Muslim and Muslims ultimately maintained their conquests as far as Turkey. I believe that in the first Crusade Christians had great success in taking back territory but overall, apart from having their advance into Europe halted and failing to hang on to Spain, Muslims did quite well.

" UK You will Pay!

7/7 on it's Way!

Rain Rain go away!

Little Johnny wants to Play!

We love Osama

We hate Dalai Lama "

A Rhyme recited by a islamic boy in an islamic school in London.

Hi mjpb

I only draw the similarity in the sense that the Crusades included some rather bloodthirsty elements, which carried out senseless killings. To that degree they are similiar. But this is not a reflection on the intention of the Crusade, more just a sad aspect of its practical outworking.

I quite agree with pretty much every point you made.

What we all need to absorb, is the degree to which Islamic 'terrorism' is based on the traditions of Islam itself.
For a good reading of those specific battle traditions, check out the 'jihad' section of the hadith of Muslim (book 19)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
reading from chapter 35 on (scroll down) will give info on most of the major battles, spoils of war, murder of Kaab the Jew etc etc.

Keep up the thoughtful contributions :)

TIT_4_tat.. you have a way don't you :) keep it up also. You say much with little.