A Review of Peter the Venerable's Writings Against the Saracens

This is a must read for any Christian interested in the Middle Ages. The edition I used for this book is volume 16 of The Fathers of the Church: Medieval Continuation series.  The volume includes several books and letters written by an abbot of Cluny.
Often hailed as a saint, Peter the Venerable has never been officially canonized. At about thirty years of age, Peter became an abbot of his own monastery.  Peter the Venerable was an abbot that became one of the first scholars in the west to be strongly familiar with the teachings of Islam. According to The Encyclopedia of Britannica, Peter the Venerable attempted to turn The Crusades movement into an effort of evangelizing the Muslims. He was a lover of peace. He translated the Koran into Latin so that missionaries would known more about the religion they were facing. Peter wrote these books to the Muslims, saying he did so out of love for them. He contrasts those that fight the Muslims with arms to his use of words and reason that he uses instead against Islam. He writes the Muslims to correct them of their ways. This French abbot, would actually pave the way for serious western scholar understandings of Islam. He had an Encyclopedia like knowledge of Islam. His Latin translation of the Koran was used by Benedictine preachers of the Crusades. He spent much time with Islamic scholars in Spain {so much for the alleged accusation that Medieval Christians were ignorant of Islam.} Peter actually called Mohammed Satan. A friend of Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter supported and praised The Knights Templar in their conflict with the Saracens, as well as that of King Louis VII, whom did fight in the Second Crusade against the Saracens, despite the fact that Peter never preached or was involved in a Crusade himself. Lest one interpret Peter the Venerable's work as being anti-Crusade, they have misunderstood the abbot. The abbot actually supported The Crusades, often praying for the Crusaders to succeed.
 Peter writes the Muslims out of love. This abbot had a great love for both the Muslims and the Jews. He disagrees with Christians that teach only heretics should be addressed. He cites Augustine as support for his position as Augustine wrote not simply against the errors of heretics but also Jews and Pagans, and addresses the fact that even pagans should be addressed.   He actually sees Islam as the greatest of all errors. He urges Christians to take action against the Mohammedan sect.  It has been said that this abbot was more aware of the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, which he uses all the ways through these works, than he was of the church fathers.
 To Peter, one cannot except parts of the Scriptures without accepting all of it. To Peter, for the Muslims to be consistent, they must embrace either Judaism or Christianity.
 According to Professor M. D. Knowles, professor of Modern History at Cambridge University,  Peter the Venerable is mostly only known among medievalists.
 Many Medieval church leaders were formerly monks including Popes Gregory VII and Urban II. These church leaders and others brought many monastic practices to the church as a whole.
 Logical reasoning follows Peter's own reasoning: If the Koran is true, the Bible must be true, but because the Bible is true, the Koran cannot be true. He teaches also that if the Scriptures lie, as the Muslims say they do in part, then they must be false, as would be the Koran which would be taking truths from lies. He points out a constant contradiction in Islam which is that the Islamic texts take partly from texts that are not inerrant according to Muslims, to form a new text that is. 
 Peter of Poiters, a student of Peter the Venerable, understood the Koran in 2:23 to teach men having the right to commit sodomy with women.
 The Muslims claim that Jews and Christians corrupted the texts just simply does not add up. The Koran makes notorious claims that do not add up with historical evidence such as its claim that Christ was not crucified despite historians and non-Christians Josephus and Tacitus saying that Jesus was crucified.  Even outside of the gospels, there is evidence that Christ was crucified from secular historians of the time. Were all these documents corrupted too? If the Muslim replies yes, then their whole religion is nonsense-which it is of course.
Peter constantly brings up Biblical prophecies one by one that came true after the texts were written while no such prophecies came true from the the text of the Koran. To Peter, the Koran was also written by Mohammed rather than divine revelation from God. His works discuss Islamic theology of Christ. According to him, Mohammed took both from heretical Christians, such as the Nestorians, as well as the Jews, to form a new religion. Peter goes into detail in why he believes Islam was merely formed to be a religion of power.
 Perhaps one of the strongest points Peter the Venerable has against Islam is its lack of historical text before Mohammed. Peter claims the Islamist have claimed the former Scriptures {being the Bible}, have been corrupted. Peter points out there lack of historical evidence for this.  The Islamic claim that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures have been corrupted, also doesn't add up. There has never been historical evidence that the Bible was corrupted, and there has never been historical evidence of any manuscripts of the Bible before Mohammed that align with his teachings. It seems strange to Peter, that if the Koran were true, that despite all the Bible manuscripts in existence by Jews and Christians, that none of them are known to exist, which would mean every single supposed Scriptural text supporting the Koran was corrupted.  Again, no evidence for the supposed corruption of the Scriptures other than Islam's self professed belief about it, which is no evidence actually at all.
 According to Islam, Gabriel the angel delivered God's message of the Koran to Mohammed during the season of Ramadan. It does make you think even more about professing Christians that celebrate this season with their Muslim friends.
 Peter the Venerable believed it was the church's right to stamp out heresy. Here too, this supports the Crusades for it shows that Islam was a heresy that the church could not be silent about while kings go to war. Peter felt that paganism was worse than heresy, though he considers Islam both, as Muslims unlike heretical Christians, receive no sacraments at all. This quite differs from many modern theologians now that consider Islam only to be heresy. Elsewhere, he writes that there are four sects in the world: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans. He also talks about in his writings, the Koran's claim that Christ ascended to the stars rather than Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection.
 To me, the most interesting part of the book is on page 39, which shows that unlike articles from Catholic Answers, Taylor Marshall and Peter Kreeft, Peter does not believe Muslims worship the one true God.
''And since he had heard that God's prophets are great men, and saying that he is a prophet so as to pretend to be something good, he attempted to lead them partly away from idolatry, yet not to the true God but rather to his own false heresy; which he already begun to bring forth.''
 In the passage above, Peter mentions  the contrast between the true God of Christianity and the false god of Islam by merely his own mentioning of Mohammed not leading people to the true God. Of course, the many defenders of Vatican II, with its abominable heresies, will either take Peter's words out context or disavow them by placing him as a merely a monk rather than church teaching. I'm not here to convert such people, but to demonstrate the truth and accuracy  of what were always taught by the Holy Roman Catholic Faith.
 Check out the book and read it. You will learn a lot about a medieval understanding of Islam.

''The truth will set you free.'' John 8: 32


''All the ways of this world are as fickle and unstable as a sudden storm at sea.'' -Peter the Venerable

Orthodox Britain? Part III

Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury supported Benedict X, a rival pope of Alexander. * This is an important fact as it demonstrates that Stigand recognized the papacy in principal, even if it was not Pope Alexander himself. Archbishop Stigand perhaps got himself in trouble with Rome not simply by his rule of two Dioceses but also his support of an anti-pope.
 The English Church would experience gradually reformation in alignment to the disciples of Rome including Clerical Celibacy {an issue that would take many years to solve}, more frequent church synods, the use of Latin in church services, the introduction of the order of the Cluny, greater access to church libraries, the gradual elimination of Old English Literature, the use of Archdeacons and a change in art. All of that said, the English Church was changed in disciplined according to Rome in many ways, though I have yet to learn if The English Church changed at all in doctrine according to the demands of Rome {which I currently have no reason to believe.} 
 After William the Conqueror successfully overtook England he would begin a slow process of changing the clergy etc. The English Church would adapt many of the common influences from the Roman Church at that time including liturgy etc. Even then, I have not yet come across any historical documents that somehow show The Church of England of this time changed its teachings as a response to the Norman Conquest. Indeed, while many upheavals would arise over the following centuries, The Church of England would always be in communion with Rome until 1534.  Perhaps contrary to Anglican and Orthodox myths then, England before 1066 had been a Roman Catholic Country all along.
 It is interesting to note however, that while William the Conqueror early on supported the growing reformed Papacy, he would later go against it. Also, many of the Reformers representing the wills of the Reformed Papacy which was attempting to give itself more and more power. This surgence of power among the popes, would come into conflict with the English kings for a very longtime. William I of England demanded all bishops and abbots of England swear fealty of their lands. The supporters of the reformed papacy never succeeded in undoing the power of kings over many church lands. William of England then saw himself as the head of the English Church, as would kings of England throughout Medieval Times. This historical fact of William's power actually lays great claim to the authority over Henry VIII over The Church of England. Just as William of England saw himself as head of the bishops and abbots in his kingdom, so later Henry VIII would abolish the control of lands once owned by monasteries that did not give him his due power. The conflict of state and church would last many centuries in England, and William I had set the stage for the English Reformation under Henry VIII by William's own claim to power over the bishops and abbots.

These historical facts can actually benefit Catholics or Anglicans depending on how one looks at it. On the one hand, it shows that England was Catholic prior to 1066. On the other hand, it shows that long before the Reformation, the English monarchy already saw itself as the head of its church and that despite being in communion with Rome, The Church of England, due to its support of England's monarchy, had a good historical case for its break with Rome in 1534 when the pope excommunicated Henry VIII.
On a flip note, artwork before the Norman Conquest was often performed by women. Even the Bayeux Tapestries were possibly made by women. Anglo-Saxon art would remain after the Norman Conquest, ultimately never fully eliminated by it.  In architecture, the Normans brought the use of castle to England. Building many castles, the Normans wanted to remind the Saxons who was in charge.  The Normans would also respect the Literature and Language of the English.
The Norman Conquest does not prove which church is theologically or morally right. It does demonstrate however, the beginnings of what will eventually be a long rivalry between Canterbury and Rome. 

*Nowadays, Rome would say the former was an anti-pope, meaning actually held the office of papacy. 




Further Sources: The Norman Conquest: England After William the Conqueror by Hugh M. Thomas, Life in the Middle Ages: Castle by Kathryn Hinds.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Stigand

A Book Review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature

A few months back I finished this book from my friend, Dr. Elizabeth Kantor. As an English major, this book is among my favorites on English Literature. It is not only good in addressing conservative themes from writers of various eras of history, but also key in demonstrating for many just how liberal many English departments have become. 

 One of the things I found most shocking in the book, was the push of Feminism, Marxism, and even Pornography in many English departments. The book shows just how much works from the past have been twisted by leftist for decades. 

The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature is a great source for any English or litetature major. Kantor's book covers key writers including but not limited to: Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, John Milton, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, T. S. Eliot and Flannery O'Connor.

 Check out her book! I am sure all of my readers will enjoy it. 

 

A Review of Excalibur

 Movies should never be our primary source for learning literature though sometimes they help.

I recently saw the film Excalibur for the first time on Clear Play. The film was full of some surprises. In many ways this film comprised the ideas I always had growing up of the Arthurian stories.

I won't get into details about the plot and story line here which are largely based on L'More D'Arthur by Thomas Malory. That said, the film does include probably all of the most post popular stories of Arthur and his knights you have heard.
 What I liked most about this Arthurian film was how close it is to Thomas Malory's Text. I've seen other Arthurian films over the years including First Knight, Quest for Camelot, Camelot, Knights of the Round Table and Sword in the Stone. All of these are no doubt good films, some better than others, but I find them all to be inferior to Excalibur primarily because its accuracy to the original source material. The film seems more influenced by its taste of Medieval Literature than its Hollywood sets and stages. To many films have catered into the latter, often conforming theme and plot to grand effects and big budgets.
 Excalibur is now one of my favorite films about Medieval Times. If you haven't seen it, you need too!

A Wrap up of John Wycliffe's Theology Part I

John Wycliffe has been called the ''Morning Star of the Reformation,'' ''The Protestant of the Middle Ages,'' and probably a host of other titles. His life and theology had a tremendous influence on late Medieval England, and later, the Protestant Reformation. In short though, here is a brief summary of his theology which I will examine more closely based on his actual writings with the help of commentary by scholars. Sometimes Wycliffe seems to be judged by some of the extremes among his Lollard followers whom quite varied among each other in their theology. For more on some of the theology of the Lollards, see The Lollard Conclusions. It should be noted though, that even that document does not summarize the beliefs of all the Lollards. Below, is a list of some of Wycliffe's beliefs found in his writings etc.

1. The Bible should be in the hands of all men, and in their own language.
2. Priesthood of all Believers
3. Rejection of Transubstantiation as the Roman Church understood it*1, and that it is ''idolatry.''
4. Against Private Confession to Priests
5. Wicked men cannot hold the office of priesthood
6. Everything is subordinate to the authority of Holy Scripture
7. Invocation of Saints is morally acceptable as long as it points one toward Christ.*2
8. An actual acceptance of a type of Purgatory
9. That those in Grace even when committing mortal sin are still in grace.
10. That there is the church of institution, and there is the church of the saved.
11. The Papacy is Antichrist

1.* Wycliffe's views on Communion, or Eucharistic Theology, are a little unclear. Some scholars have pointed out that he sometimes teaches Memoralism, Receptionisism, and Consubstantiation.
2*This is interesting, as later Confessional Lutherans and Calvinist would strongly reject this practice. This may sound surprising that Wycliffe supported devotion to the saints as he was against the worship of the saints and other abuses that he saw in his day. Furthermore, many Protestants today would be shocked to learn that Wycliffe taught that Christians need Mary's invocation on a sermon that he gave on the festival of her assumption. 


 I am currently waiting on some of Wycliffe's actual writings to come in the mail. Whether we agree or disagree with Wycliffe, it is interesting how some of his positions didn't go to the extremes on some issues as did later Protestant Reformers. I'm sure I will learn more in detail about Wycliffe's positions on many issues. Until then, Godspeed.






Further Sources: The English Works of Wycliff Hitherto Unprinted, Latin Writings of John Wyclf {Subsidia Mediaevalia}, Morning Star of the Reformation by Any Thomas, The English Works of Wyclife Hitherto Unprinted by John Wycliffe (p.xlii-xliii). 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wyclif/?fbclid=IwAR0b-s6f9-JfnY1bO-yONzWeipxBhVcfq96GZCgtTXAZyUCk-OuiS1-JEjQ#4

A Review of Canterbury Tales: The Clerk's Tale

There is, at the west syde of Itaille, 

Doun at the rote of Vesulus the colde,

A lusty playne, habundant of vitaille,

Wher many a tour and toun thou mayest biholde,

That founded were in tyme of fadres olde,

And many another delitablr sighte,

And Saluces this noble contree highte.

 In the prologue to the Clerk's Tale, the host calls upon the shy scholar to speak and that this is not the time to study. The host also tells the scholar not to preach the tale. The scholar submits to the will of the host and goes on to tell a story about a scholar.

 In the tale, a lord lives happily with his comrades. This lord's name is Walter. Walter is suggested by his subjects to take a wife so as to preserve his bloodline. While he appreciates their support he trusts in God to preserve his bloodline. He then says he will choose a wife for himself. Part I of The Clerk's Tale ends shortly thereafter. 

 In Part II of the Clerk's Tale, the story really begins to take function. Near the lord is a small village with poor folk. The poorest of all men in town had a daughter names Griselda. 

 Griselda is virtuous and fair, having known hard life well. A virgin, she has a firm and mature heart. Griselda cares for her old father and she often watches sheep while spinning. She is a most hard worker. 

Walter often looks upon Griselda when going hunting. He decides if ever he weds it will be to here. He then prepares for the wedding day as many wonder who the bride will be. 

 Griselda is unaware of the wedding party that is bring prepared for her while she simply draws water from the well. The lord stops by her home and asks where her father is. Griselda tells him that her father is inside. 

 Janicula, is the name of the old man that is Griselda's father. He is asked by the lord to have Griselda as wife. Janicula says the lord may do as he pleases. People come to the house meanwhile, to see how Griselda takes care of her old father. The lord proposes to Griselda and she agrees to be his wife. He calls upon the people to love her. 

 Griselda is dressed by the lord's maidens in fine clothes. Her gracefulness then makes her former life seem unknown. She marries the lord and then later gives birth to a daughter from his seed. 

 So ends Part II of The Clerk's Tale.

 In Part III, Walter reminds his wife of her lowly origins and says that some of his subjects find it hard to submit to one born in a poor village. His words are actually out of care for the image of his wife and daughter rather than arrogance of himself. Little does she know, that her husband is also putting her to the test.  He tells her he must do with his daughter was is best. Walter has his sergeant seize the child from its mother. Despite being sad, Griselda doesn't cry but trusts her lord's will. She begs to kiss her child before its death, which she is granted. She then prays over the child as she commends her babe to God. She requests the sergeant to bury the child where no beasts or birds go. The sergeant doesn't give her an answer as he takes the child away. 

 The sergeant tells the lord of Griselda's wish. The lord fills pity on the child but is determined to carry out his will. The lord then reveals his actual plan, which is to send his daughter to his sister at Bologna. He threatens the sergeant to tell this to no one or he will be having him beheaded. The sergeant carries out his lord's wish as Walter returns to his wife to find her still being kind to him. So ends Part III of The Clerk's Tale.   

 In Part IV, four years have passed. A young boy was born of the parents and the country rejoiced in this. The boy is two years old at the beginning of the tale. The lord then commands his son to be taken from his wife. She submits again to her husband as the sergeant takes her son. In fact, the older she gets, the more she loves her husband. 

 The lord gets permission from the pope to not only proclaim his marriage dissolved but also allows Walter free to marry another. Griselda felt sad when she heard this but was submissive to his will and desire. 

 Secretly, the lord calls for his children to be brought back to him without anyone knowing whose father they are. He has it proclaimed that the girl will marry The Marquis of Saluzzo (whom is him). The girl is taken with her brother to meet him for wedding. Thus ends Part IV of The Clerk's Tale. So ends Part IV of The Clerk's Tale.
 In Part V of The Clerk's Tale, the lord sends his wife back to her father. Her father comes to regret the day of his own existence, and even curses it. That's a brief summary of this section of the tale. So ends Part V of The Clerk's Tale.

 In Part VI of The Clerk's Tale, Walter tells Griselda that he is about to be married. Griselda replies that she loves him. 

At the feast for the coming wedding, Walter asks Griselda what she thinks of his bride to be. Griselda praises the girl and wishes for her prosperity. However, she asks Walter to not treat the young maiden as he has treated other maidens since those born in such wealth could not take on such affliction as the poor can. Walter sees her patience and lack of envy against his person. He then says he knows her true faithfulness just before he kisses her. He proclaims that he has never loved another wife! Walter then goes on to tell how the children at the court are really their own. Griselda then cries as she embraces her children and kisses them. Griselda cares not now if she dies now that she knows her children are alive. The day ends on a happy good note. The children of Walter and Griselda go on to have happy lives.  

 The purpose of the story in the end according to Petrarch is not for wives to have complete submission to their husbands, but that we should be like Griselda in our good will despite anything God allows us to see or live through. That is the core moral of the story. Thus ends Part VII of The Clerk's Tale. 

A song follows Part VII of The Clerk's Tale which speaks of Griselde being dead

  

My thoughts? This is in many ways a Cinderella story. A poor girl gains the attention of a noble lord. The girl is a hard worker like Cinderella, as well as busy keeping her home.

 There are morale values here too that I picked up from the text including that beauty is more than wealth or noble birth. Also, purity does eventually pay off. 

 The Clerk's Tale may not be the most exciting story ever but it levels several morales thanks to the wits of Geoffrey Chaucer. Chaucer's stories are full of interesting characters and unexpected plot twists. Some have considered Chaucer greater than Shakespeare, I personally concur. Chaucer has always been the greatest writer of English Literature. He also, probably always will be. You can't read English Literature without reading Chaucer. 

Holy War Before 1095

It is sometimes claimed that the Crusades were the first time warfare was done in the name of religion. While the 11th century saw the defining of The Crusades movement, the concept of religious or holy war go back much earlier. Historian Edward Peter traces the roots of Christian Holy War to the 11th century, but even if was just suddenly formed this late it was because of the need to do so as the Greek East and Latin West were under a new threat of Islam by the aggressive Seljuk Turks.
Further, Constantine claimed to see a Cross in the Heavens as a sign of his coming victory and had used Christianity to further his cause in war against the Western Roman Empire, which had been persecuting Christians for centuries. Many of the Early Christians supported Constantine early in his career for these very reasons.  Charlemagne later fought the Muslims in Spain, a precursor to the later Crusades Movement. The Song of Roland was written long before the Crusades and clearly makes the Christian Muslim conflict a religious issue.  

Some make the claim that while Saint Augustine believed in the doctrine of just war that does not mean he supported ''Holy War..'' In reality, Augustine believed those that didn't hold to the Catholic Faith could be persecuted and he wasn't just talking about war when he said that. Augustine's views though on punishing heretics and his understanding of war will be addressed in another post.
 According to Encyclopedia of The Crusades by Aldfred J. Andrea, there was essentially no difference between just war and Holy War in Medieval Doctrine. Perhaps the main difference between the two in the Medieval Understanding, is the understanding of Salvation and Remission of Sins which follows The Holy War Doctrine. Perhaps Holy Wars were also more rare than wars at large. Church lawyers generally agreed only a pope could summon a Crusade. Between 1095 and 1291 the popes called for seven Crusades. * For more information on the concept of Holy War, read pp. 160-161 of Dr. Andrea's book.

 Emperor Charlemagne fought against the Saxons for many years and infamously in modern times,  slayed four thousand of them and eventually forced the remainders into Christianity. This was centuries before The First Crusade. Charlemagne's favorite book was City of God by Saint Augustine of Hippo which is no surprise given the theocratic influence City of God gave on the Medieval West. The Theology of Forced Christianity and Crusading has been attributed to Saint Augustine of Hippo. Augustine's theology is sometimes considered the end of Ancient Christianity and the beginning of Medieval Christianity.

 Popes had been involved in the political affairs of the Western Christian Empire since at least the Early Middle Ages. Popes ruled the Papal States from the 8th to the 19th centuries. The Monarchy of the papacy in Southern Italy had great influence upon many kingdoms of the west. The role of the church during the Middle Ages is one of the biggest factors of differences between our world and the world of the Medieval West. 5th century Pope Leo I met the Huns and Persuaded them not to invade Rome. It has been said that Emperor Heraclius would have allowed Islam into the Eastern Empire and even wanted harmony between Christianity and Islam but all this was deterred for by Pope Honorious whom opposed the spread of Islam, and sent missionaries throughout the world.  Honorius compared Islam to Arianism, having been aware of Islam just shortly before his death. Monotheltism was an issue of debate still going on in the east and west as Islam was rising as a new religious force. 7th century Pope Donus gave refuge to Eastern monks that fled the Islamic conquest of their homelands. 8th century Pope Gregory III did much to prevent Islam including banning Christians selling other Christians into slavery to the Muslims along with him personally ransoming many Christians from slavery. Gregory III also supported several Christian alliances in war against the Muslims including his support of Charles Martel's defense of France against the Islamic invasion. 8th century Pope Saint Zachary urged the Franks to fight the Muslims.  8th century Pope Gregory III, supported the Franks against the Lombards. 9th century Pope Leo IV even fought in Battle against the Muslims at the Battle of Ostia. The Battle of Civitate was fought between the Normans and those of the papal forces on June 18, 1053. Pope Leo IX had successfully organized a military force against the Normans, only to be defeated. The papacy and the Normans would not become allies until 1059. It has been said that Pope Leo IX was the first Pope to use The Donation of Constantine to his advantage. Islam certainly saw a rise in the Christian belief of Holy War as it never yet. Spain was conquered by Muslims and though Muslim Spain was not entirely hostile to Christians it did kill any Muslim that converted to Christianity. Even Rome was plundered by Muslims in 846 A. D.. Slowly, The Crusades Movement was beginning to rise. Until Urban II, one might be able to argue that most of the previous popes took a more defensive stand towards the west rather than offensive one on the east. This may well be true, but would change when the Byzantines themselves would ask the pope to help them in war against the Seljuk Turks. 

 Several popes had called for Crusades before Urban II including Alexander II and Gregory VII. Much more could be said in detail about these popes and others in their relations to Islam. For more information on this, check the link at the bottom. https://www.thomasmore.org/15-popes-whose-islamophobia-saved-the-christian-world-from-muslim-takeover/
The Donation of Constantine, while now known to be a forgery, was believed to be legitimate by popes for many years. This document claimed that Emperor Constantine gave his power over to the papacy, further legitimizing the politics of popes. Although it had it's skeptics prior, it was believed as a legitimate document until the 15th century.

During the 16th and 17th centuries many Protestants held to a concept of Holy War Including Protestant groups in the Thirty-Years' War and Puritans of the English Civil War. The concept of Holy War among Protestants though is not the subject of this first post which is only about Holy Wars before 1095.
As far as evangelism is concerned, according to Eleanor H. Tejirian and Reeve Spector Simon, after the seventh century evangelism in the West was mostly centered on gaining conversion from the Eastern Church to Islam than to Evangelism of the Middle East. Indeed, the Christian West had quite the time during the Early Middle Ages of converting back various groups in Western Europe from paganism back to Christianity. Islamic rulers refused their subjects being evangelized and the punishments for Muslims converting to Christianity was death. Many Christians were killed under Islamic rule all the while the Islamic countries were free of Missionaries to them from the West. The lack of evangelism towards the Muslim world is also explained by the fact that Bishops often foresaw evangelism in their own diocese, the Roman Church would rather convert multitudes of entire people groups than disperse missionaries to all fronts {which it would later do during The Crusades, by which point all of Europe would then be Christian.} 4th century bishop: Saint Martin of Tours was a bishop and not alone in his efforts to see the destroying of the worship of pagans and replacing it with adoration of the saints and a following of Christianity. Martin of Tours would go on to be venerated throughout the Medieval World.  When it comes to evangelism, no Christian denomination has done more for the world than has the Latin Church in converting Europe and parts of Asia and Africa and America to Christianity. Europe would have not been Christian if it had not been for the evangelism of the Roman Church. Not all of Northern Europe would even come to Christianity until centuries after the origins of Islam  These distractions no doubt, while certainly worthy ones, came as an advantage to the spread of Islam's flame. Further to deter Christian Evangelism of the Middle East, many Muslim conquerors forced Islam on their Christian which became worse and worse as the power of the Seljuk Turks increased. Francis of Assisi however, was willing to die for the Christian faith and would later evangelize unsuccessfully the Muslims during the Fifth Crusade. The great work of Saint Francis was way beyond his homeland in Southern Europe, and his Franciscan order would go on to Evangelize peoples in different parts of the world, even as far as Mongolia. The coming of the Franciscan Order in the 13th century would add another layer to the Medieval Church's outreach to a lost world.
 The Franciscans would be alone as the Dominicans would also be a new order during the Crusades, as would be the Carmelites. The Dominicans, like the Franciscans, would also be great evangelist.
 This is the first post on this topic. More to come!

 *Sometimes Historians list it as 9 Crusades. Hundreds of expeditions happened to the Holy Land during the Middle Ages though not all were officially called upon by the church.
 Further Sources: The Political Writings by Saint Augustine, The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor, Encyclopedia of the Crusades by Alfred J. Andrea, Medieval Christianity: A New History by Kevin Madigan, True Christianity: The Catholic Way by John J. Pasquini, Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins, History of the Catholic Church by James Hitchcock, Religion in then Medieval West by Bernard Hamilton, The Western Church in the Middle Ages by John A. Thompson, Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions in the Middle East by Eleanor H. Tejirian and Reeve Spector Simon.