Some of you might find this paper interesting. I wrote it some years ago when I was studying some Christian sermons from the time of the Crusades (you can download the book here https://b-ok.cc/book/608219/050e03).
I was trying to understand what went wrong in biblical interpretation that made people think they should kill to protect their faith. I wondered what it was, again in terms of biblical interpretation, that made Francis of Assisi different. Since I am a Protestant, I was also interested in Martin Luther, and what it was that made him on the one hand say that the Crusades were wrong, but on the other hand not seem to be interested in the welfare of Muslims - either temporal or eternal.
After so many years, I wouldn't write that same thing again. But the ideas are still interesting, and some of you might like to discuss them. And there is an underlying question: how far is it our interpretation of Scripture that drives our thinking, and how far does our current context and what we want to believe drive our interpretation of Scripture? We may WANT to subject our lives to God, and to what He is saying to us, but how do we discern what He is saying? I think that history can help us to check that out!