Lesson video

Hello there.

My name is Mr. Robertson.

I absolutely love RE, and I can't wait to teach you today.

This lesson comes in our unit about GCSE RE, and it is about religion, peace, and conflict.

And this particular lesson is looking at the idea of religion as a cause of war and the idea of Holy War.

So by the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain how religion can be a cause of war using the Crusades as an example, and you'll be able to evaluate different Christian, Muslim, and non-religious attitudes towards Holy War.

We have three key words and phrases for you today.

The first word is "Crusades," and the Crusades were a series of religious wars fought between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages, primarily over control of Jerusalem and other holy sites.

Secondly, we have the phrase "Holy War," and that is a war believed to be sanctioned or commanded by God to defend a faith, secure religious territories, or convert others to a religion.

And finally, we have the phrase "symbolic interpretation," and that means understanding a religious text as using symbols or metaphors rather than taking the words literally.

You'll see these words appear through the lesson, and I think you'll know how to use them by the end of it.

So we have three sections in our learning today.

We're gonna begin by talking about the idea of religion and the causes of war.

So sometimes religion can be a cause of war, and that may happen for various reasons.

Religion might be a cause of war because of conflict over land, which is seen as sacred.

It might be about defending the existence of that religion if members of that religion feel that it is under threat.

Or it might be about converting others, going out, and making other people become members of that religion.

People may believe they must defend their faith if it is under attack or protect places and communities that are important to that religion.

Conflict can also happen over land that is seen as sacred or when groups try to convert others to their beliefs.

And often that's where the most tensions can arise, where perhaps different religious groups have claims over the same area of land, for example.

It is important to remember that most religious believers see peace as central to their faith.

So while religion can be used to justify war, it is just as often used to argue against it.

Religion can sometimes be a reason for war, but it's usually not the only reason.

Wars can often happen for several reasons at the same time.

War is complex and messy and not normally reducible to single causes and effects.

For example, as well as religion, power is often involved, people wanting more power or trying to take power away.

Wealth can play a role as well if a country or group of people are envious of the wealth or resources that another area has and want it for themselves.

And land is a very common cause as well, wanting to either reclaim, take back, or take over more land and extend the territory of that particular country or group of people.

So, as well as religion, these ideas of power, wealth, and land can often fold in and be part of the reasons that a war takes place.

Jacob says, "It sounds like sometimes religion isn't the cause of war, but political leaders use it as an excuse for war." Interesting idea, Jacob.

And you might be able to think of conflicts, either present or past, where you might think about that as well.

Okay, let's check our understanding so far.

Which of the following is a reason why religion may lead to war? A, it helps to improve trade between countries.

B, there is conflict over sacred land.

C, it helps to spread political influence.

Think about what we've just been learning about.

Pause the video.

Have a think.

Excellent.

We talked about B, conflict over sacred land, as one of the reasons that religion may lead to war.

Fabulous if you got that right.

Okay, let's think a little bit about some of the things we've been learning about.

We've got some different causes of a war here: one, to defend the existence of the territory or the people or the nation; two, conflict over land; and three, converting others.

And then we've got some different examples.

A, a leader orders followers to spread their religion by force.

B, two faiths both claim the same holy city.

C, missionaries try to spread their faith peacefully, but conflict begins.

D, a country invades to control land seen as holy.

E, an army protects sacred sites from destruction.

And F, a religion fights back after being banned by a government.

So what I'd like you to do is this is: can you find two examples that you could match to each of those three causes? Think about what we've learned so far.

For defending existence, which two examples would fit? For conflict over land, which two? And for converting others, which two? Really look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Good luck.

Okay, some brilliant thinking.

So, to start with the first cause, "defending existence," we might say an army protects sacred sites from destruction, or a religion fights back after being banned by a government, are examples of that.

"Conflict over land," we might have two faiths claiming the same holy city, or a country invading to control land it sees as holy.

And finally, "converting others," we may have a leader ordering followers to spread their religion by force, or C, missionaries trying to spread their faith peacefully, but conflict begins.

If you managed to sort those all correctly, you're doing brilliantly.

Well done.

So for the second part of this lesson, we're going to be looking at the example of the Crusades as an example of a Holy War.

So what were the Crusades? Well, they were a series of Holy Wars fought between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages, mainly over control of Jerusalem and other holy places in that part of the world.

Many Christians at that time believed they were fighting a Holy War, which had been commanded by God to protect or reclaim sacred land.

The Christian leaders at the time saw that part of the world as holy because it was where Jesus had lived, and so sites like Jerusalem and Bethlehem, they felt should belong in Christian hands, and they wanted to reclaim them or conquer them back from Muslims, which controlled that area at the time.

In order to try and get people to fight and take part in the Crusades, Church leaders promised spiritual rewards, such as the forgiveness of sins, for those who joined.

And so there was a huge incentive for people to fight and be part of the Crusades, because they believed that all of their sins in their lives would be forgiven and they would be guaranteed a place in heaven, which is why it was a Holy War.

The Crusades were not only about religion.

Many rulers also wanted land, wealth, and political power.

Once those lands were conquered, they would be carved up and given to the leaders of the different families who'd helped conquer them.

And so there was a real incentive to gain some new land and power there.

As well as that, joining a Crusade could bring fame and economic benefits.

So for some, religion was a genuine motivation, and the idea of forgiveness was really important.

But for others, there were some other justifications, such as political and economic ways of helping themselves or their families.

Where does the word "Crusades" come from? Well, it comes from the Latin word "crusade," with the Latin "crux" meaning "cross." So a crusade literally means "to take the cross," because, as I said, it was seen by some as a kind of military pilgrimage where they would gain all of their sins to be forgiven.

Crusaders often wore a cross sewn onto their garments, and that signified that this was not just a regular war, but it was a Holy War.

It's likely that these Holy Wars were not actually referred to as the Crusades until much later in the 1800s.

It's a kind of modern historical term that's been written back onto those series of wars that took place at the time.

For Muslims, the Crusades were seen as an invasion of their land by Christian armies from Europe.

Places like Damascus and Jerusalem are also holy in Islam and essential to the Muslim faith.

Many Muslims believed then that they were fighting a jihad of defence, they themselves protecting their faith, people, and sacred places.

One of the most famous leaders, Saladin, united the Muslims and retook Jerusalem in 1187.

Like Christians, Muslim rulers also had political and economic aims, such as defending their empires and controlling trade.

Of course, for ordinary Muslims who were living in these areas, the Crusades caused great suffering.

Many were massacred.

There were horrible things done in the name of that religion.

But they also created a strong sense of unity and identity as protectors of Islam.

It was a really dark period of history.

Okay, let's just check what we understand by the Crusades.

Were they: A, a peace treaty between Christians and Muslims? B, wars fought to gain land and wealth in Europe? C, Holy Wars fought between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages? Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

They were Holy Wars fought between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages.

Now, our views on the Crusades have changed over time, particularly in Christian countries.

At the time of the Crusades, which was in the 11th to 13th century, they were seen as Holy Wars commanded by God.

The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and Church leaders promoted them as acts of faith.

As I said, they offered forgiveness of sins, so many people saw the Crusaders as heroes who were defending Christianity and taking back the Holy Land from people from a different religion.

As time passed in the 14th to 18th century, some Christians still praised the Crusades, but others began to criticise them for the violence, suffering, and failures of them.

Writers and thinkers pointed out that motives like greed and power often mixed with the religious ideas that people had talked about before.

In the 19th century, the Crusades were often glorified in literature and art, and history as noble adventurers, knights fighting for faith and honour.

But in the 20th to 21st century, modern historians have been much more critical.

They stress that the Crusades were not purely religious but political and economic.

Many now see them as violent wars of conquest, leading to a huge loss of life.

Ultimately, the Crusades were a complex event with mixed motives.

They were not simply a story about faith and religion.

Okay, I've got a task for you now to reflect on some of what you've learned.

A very famous quote in Matthew is this: "I did not come to bring peace but a sword." I would like you to decide whether each interpretation of this Matthew passage below would support or challenge the idea of the Crusades as a Holy War.

So think about what Jesus might be meaning when he says this: "I did not come to bring peace but a sword." One: Jesus meant that loyalty to God must come before family and peace, even if it causes conflict.

Does that support or challenge the idea of the Crusades as a Holy War? Two: Jesus was speaking symbolically, showing that following him may cause division, not that Christians should fight wars.

Three: Jesus' words could be taken as permission to use violence in defence of Christianity.

And four: Jesus taught peace and forgiveness in other passages, which suggest the Crusades went against his message.

So, for each of those statements, does that statement, "bring peace but a sword," support or challenge the idea of the Crusades as a Holy War? Come on, theologians.

Look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Pause the video and have a think.

Okay, let's have a look.

So these statements might mean they support it: Jesus meant that loyalty to God must come before family and peace, even if it causes conflict.

And Jesus' words can be taken as permission to use violence in defence of Christianity.

So that phrase, "I come to bring peace but a sword," might be used to support Holy War in these arguments.

However, we might also say that Jesus was speaking symbolically, and actually, the statement was about following him may cause division, not about fighting a war.

And number four, Jesus taught peace and forgiveness in other passages, which suggest the Crusades went against his message.

So you might take that and argue against the idea of the Crusades being a Holy War.

If you managed to sort those into those two tables, brilliant.

Really great thinking.

For the final part of this lesson, we're going to be looking at different attitudes to Holy War.

Now, when we think about Christian responses to things such as Holy War, it's important to realise that they're informed by different sources of authority.

And that might include the Bible, teachings of the Church, the example of other Christians, Christian ethical theories such as Natural Law and situation ethics, individual conscience, and ability to reason as Christians.

And of course, really importantly, Christians will interpret sources differently, and they may emphasise one source more than another.

And so there is not ever going to be agreement between Christians, and it's important that we understand these different Christian worldviews to better understand Christianity.

So obviously, the Bible is a source of wisdom and authority for Christians around issues such as Holy War.

Let's look at a slightly fuller quotation from that we looked at in the first task: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.

I did not come to bring peace but a sword." So this is a really interesting statement from the Gospel of Matthew, and these words are spoken by Jesus.

Now remember, for Christians, Jesus is the Son of God, and so anything he says will be paid with particular attention and weight.

I wonder how this might be interpreted by some Christians to connect to the idea of Holy War.

You might want to think already what we've been learning in the previous task.

So some Christians throughout history have interpreted this text literally to mean that they should fight for God.

So when Jesus says, "I did not come to bring peace but a sword," this view acknowledges that commitment to him may lead to violent conflict.

And this could be seen as divine approval of fighting in God's name.

And so, particularly in the past, Christians might have argued that for the Crusades, that God is allowing them to bring a sword to defend God's name.

But most Christians today would interpret this passage symbolically.

And so it's not about reading it literally.

In a symbolic interpretation, the sword that he talks about might represent division and conflicts that arise when people choose to follow him, even within families.

So it does not mean that Christians should just wage a Holy War.

Instead, Jesus is talking about the fact that following him can cause conflict and tension between people within families.

Let's talk to some different Christians and see how they might interpret this passage.

Charlie has a Christian worldview, and he attends a Baptist church.

Charlie says, "I think that in the past, Holy War has been justified to protect the faith or holy places.

If a government was persecuting Christians or destroying sacred sites, then I think you can interpret what Jesus is saying to allow for violence.

This might be a Holy War.

However, I would not justify the Crusades as a Holy War.

It was really a war to conquer land and not protect people." So what Charlie seems to be saying here is that he thinks that there could be an argument for a Holy War if a government was persecuting Christians or destroying sacred sites.

That he might interpret that statement about saying that there is a possibility of violence.

But he wouldn't justify the Crusades as a Holy War because he thinks that, actually, it was more about conquering land and not protecting people.

Danielle has a Christian worldview and attends a Roman Catholic church.

She says, "It's important to read the whole chapter in this Gospel text and not just one sentence.

The context is Jesus instructing his followers to go out and tell others his message.

He knows it's gonna be difficult and dangerous.

Jesus is explaining that follow him will cause division, and people will not like his words.

I have a symbolic interpretation of this text." So Danielle is not taking this literally, and she's telling us to understand the whole context, that Jesus is talking to his followers about going out and telling other people about Jesus and his message, and that that's gonna be difficult.

Andeep asks her, "So even though Jesus says he brings a sword, you don't interpret that as being a justification for a Holy War?" Danielle says, "Exactly.

We need to look at what Jesus taught across all the Gospels and not pick sentences out of context.

The Beatitudes in Matthew 5:9 sum up his teaching.

Jesus said, 'Blessed are the peacemakers.

' He taught love for enemies and forgave those who killed him." Andeep says, "What are your views on a Holy War like the Crusades?" She says, "I think the Crusades were totally wrong.

At that time, people corrupted the teaching of Jesus to justify a Holy War.

I do not think that Jesus's message of peace sits with a war against other religions or of conquest." So what Danielle is saying is we need to look wider than just one sentence and look at everything that Jesus taught.

And she draws particularly on "Blessed are the peacemakers" to say, "Hang on, I think Jesus taught a message of peace and forgiveness." Let's think and check our understanding.

So why do Christians like Danielle reject Holy War? Choose two correct answers.

A, Christians reject all wars and conflicts.

B, many Christians have a symbolic interpretation of texts and do not take them literally.

C, many Christians look at other teachings of Jesus about forgiving enemies.

D, Christians do not need the Bible to justify Holy War.

Think about Danielle said.

Which two answers make the most sense? Excellent.

It's B and C, isn't it? Many Christians have a symbolic interpretation of texts and don't take them literally, and C, many Christians look at other teachings of Jesus about forgiving enemies, like "Blessed are the peacemakers." Brilliant if you got that right.

Humanism is a non-religious worldview that bases moral decisions on reason, empathy, and weighing of evidence.

And we can see the Happy Human there, the international symbol of humanism.

Humanists strongly reject Holy War.

As a non-religious worldview, they argue war should never be based on religious belief because faith cannot justify killing.

Many humanists are critical of the role that religion plays in the world and see it can be a cause of war.

Alan has a humanist worldview.

He says, "I think war is a terrible failure of humanity.

I've driven trucks in conflict zones and seen the suffering it causes.

As an atheist, I don't believe in the concept of a Holy War.

Wars are created by humans, and I feel events like the Crusades misused the idea of God to justify massacring thousands of people for greed and conquest.

To launch a war requires clear use of reason and international law." So Alan, as a humanist, strongly wants to take any notion of Holy War away.

He doesn't believe in God, and he doesn't think that we should justify religion, the name of God, to justify a war.

He thinks war should be based on reason and international law.

Let's just check our understanding here.

Which of the following best describes a humanist view of Holy War? A, a Holy War is acceptable if it protects faith and holy sites.

B, holy War is sometimes justified if it helps bring peace in the long run.

C, holy War can never be justified because killing cannot be excused by religion.

D, holy War is necessary to spread Christianity.

Which of those describes what Alan just said? Excellent.

It's C, isn't it? That Holy War could never be justified because killing cannot be excused by religion.

Brilliant if you got that right.

So for our final task, we're going to have a look at bringing all of our learning together, and you've been asked to explain two contrasting beliefs about Holy War by using Christian and humanist perspectives.

Now, in your answer, you must refer to a source of wisdom and authority.

So you might want to think about that quotation about bringing peace, not a sword.

You might also want to look at the idea of "Blessed are the peacemakers." When you do this piece of writing, think about making your point and then developing it.

Make sure you name and link in a relevant source, and then explain what it teaches in relation to your point.

So this could be a quotation, or it could just be a general belief or teaching, particularly if we're looking at the non-religious humanist worldview.

Think very much about making your point and how you develop it.

Really look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Wow, some brilliant work.

I've got an example answer for you here.

You might have said: Some Christians think Holy War can be justified if it protects their faith or holy places.

They link this to Matthew 10:34-40, where Jesus said, "I did not come to bring peace but a sword," and take it to mean loyalty to God might cause conflict.

Other Christians disagree and say Jesus taught peace and forgiveness.

They point to "Blessed are the peacemakers," Matthew 5:9, and argue that fighting in God's name goes against his message of love.

Humanists reject Holy War completely.

They say religion should never excuse killing, such as the suffering in the Crusades, and believe problems should be solved through fairness and reason, not violence.

So you can see that in our first paragraph, we've explained why it might be justified, and we used our source of authority there about bringing peace, not a sword, and then explained what it means.

We've then put a counterargument in the next paragraph.

We've used a different source of authority, "Blessed are the peacemakers." We've explained what that means.

And finally, we've talked about humanism rejecting Holy War completely.

So if you've managed to make some points in a paragraph, if you've managed to bring in a source and develop it, you've done a great job.

Really well done.

Let's summarise what we've been learning today.

So we've learned that religion can sometimes cause war, for example, in a way of defending a faith, land, or converting others.

We've looked at the example of the Crusades as an example of a Holy War between Christians and Muslims over Jerusalem.

We've learned that Christians have different views on Holy War depending on how they interpret teachings.

And we've learned that humanists reject Holy War, saying religion cannot justify killing or suffering.

I hope that lesson's been really, really helpful.

I hope that that's given you some useful information and some confidence when you're coming to write some answers yourself.

Look forward to seeing you soon.