Throughout history, Christians have displayed a variety of perspectives toward violence and nonviolence. Currently and historically, Christianity has manifested four attitudes concerning violence and warfare: non-resistance, Christian pacifism, just war, and preventive war (Holy war, e.g., the Crusades).[1]
During the Roman Empire, the early church adopted a stance of nonviolence regarding warfare, as emulating Jesus’s sacrificial existence was seen as more preferable.[2] The idea of “Just War,” which asserts that limited warfare can be justified, originated from the writings of earlier non-Christian Roman and Greek philosophers, including Cicero and Plato.[3][4] Subsequently, this philosophy was embraced by Christian scholars like St. Augustine, who, along with other Christians, drew heavily from Roman law and the writings of Roman thinkers such as Cicero.[5][6][7] Despite the early acceptance of the “Just War” principle, warfare was not considered a noble pursuit, and there was widespread concern for the salvation of those who killed adversaries in combat, irrespective of the motivations behind their conflicts.[8] Concepts such as “Holy war,” where the act of fighting itself could be seen as a penitential and spiritually virtuous undertaking, did not come into existence until the 11th century.[8][9]
Bible
The Bible encompasses numerous passages that encourage, command, rebuke, reward, penalize, regulate, and depict acts of violence.[10][11]
Scholars Leigh Gibson and Shelly Matthews, an associate professor of religion at Furman University,[12] note that certain academics, including René Girard, “promote the New Testament as potentially containing the cure for Old Testament violence.” John Gager points out that such an interpretation risks endorsing the views of the heretical figure Marcion of Sinope (c. 85–160), who differentiated between the vengeful God of the Old Testament and the merciful God depicted in the New Testament.[13]
Mahatma Gandhi adopted the notion of nonviolence that he discovered in both Indian religions and the New Testament (e.g., Sermon on the Mount), employing it in his strategies for social and political activism.[14]
Christian Violence
J. Denny Weaver, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Bluffton University, posits that there are multiple evolving perceptions of violence and nonviolence throughout the course of Christian theology.[15] Many historians assert that the Constantinian shift transformed Christianity from a persecuted faith to one that persecuted others.[16]
Miroslav Volf identifies the onset of a “new creation,” as portrayed in the Second Coming, as a specific element of Christianity that incites violence.[17] Discussing this, Volf states: “Since at least the time of Constantine’s conversion, the adherents of the Crucified have committed brutal acts of violence under the banner of the cross. Throughout history, the periods of Lent and Holy Week have been, for Jews, seasons of dread. Muslims also link the cross with aggression; the rampages of crusaders were executed under the symbol of the cross.”[18]
The phrase attributed to Jesus, “I come not to bring peace, but a sword,” has been construed by some as a rallying cry for Christians.[19] Mark Juergensmeyer contends that “despite its foundational principles of love and peace, Christianity—similar to most traditions—has always possessed a violent dimension. The sanguine history of the tradition has yielded unsettling images, and violent conflict is starkly depicted in the Bible. This historical backdrop and these biblical portrayals have provided the foundation for theologically justifying the aggression of modern Christian factions. For instance, attacks on abortion clinics are perceived not only as assaults on a practice deemed immoral by Christians but also as skirmishes in a grand battle between forces of good and evil with profound social and political ramifications,”[19]: 19–20 occasionally referred to as Spiritual warfare.
Higher moral principles have been employed to validate violence among Christians.[20]
Historically, according to René Girard, numerous Christians accepted violence when it became the prevailing religion of the Roman Empire: “From the time of Constantine, Christianity prospered at the level of state power and soon began to cloak its authority over persecutions reminiscent of those which early Christians endured.”[21]
Wars
Perspectives on the Military prior to Constantine
The examination of Christian involvement in military service during the pre-Constantinian period has been widely debated, resulting in a substantial body of literature.[22][23]: 4
For most of the 20th century, a consensus evolved around Adolf von Harnack’s perspective that the early church was pacifist, that during the second and third centuries, a growing acceptance of military service took place, and by the time of Constantine, a just war ethic had emerged.[23]: 4 [24][25]
This
“`consensus was contested primarily by the research of John Helgeland[26] during the 1970s and 1980s. He argued that many of the early Christians resisted military service not due to a stance against killing, but rather in opposition to the Roman religion and the rituals associated with the Roman army.[22][23]: 5 [27] Helgeland further asserted that the literature reveals a range of opinions, as well as indications of varied practices among Christians.[23]: 5 George Kalantzis, a Theology Professor at Wheaton College,[28] aligned himself with Harnack in the discussion, stating, “literary evidence supports the strong internal consistency of the Church’s non-violent position during the first three centuries.”[23]: 7
David Hunter has determined that a “new consensus” has developed, integrating elements from both Helgeland’s and Harnack’s perspectives. Hunter posits that early Christians’ opposition to military service was rooted in their “abhorrence of Roman army religion” (reflecting Helgeland’s view) as well as their aversion to violence (in line with Harnack’s view). He observes that by the 2nd century, Christian practices began to diverge from the theological principles found in early Christian writings. The third aspect of the “new consensus” articulated by Hunter is the claim that the just war theory embodies at least one perspective from before Constantine. Lastly, Kreider contributed to these points by noting that Christian sentiments regarding violence likely varied across different geographical areas, emphasizing that militaristic attitudes were more prevalent in border regions compared to “heartland” areas that were more closely aligned with the Empire.[23]: 6
There is minimal evidence regarding the degree of Christian engagement in the military; generalizations are often speculative.[29][30] A select number of gravestones belonging to Christian soldiers have been unearthed.[31][30]
Just War
The just war theory represents a principle of military ethics with origins in Roman philosophical and Catholic thought[32][33] that is examined by moral theologians, ethicists, and international policy makers, contending that a conflict can and should fulfill the criteria for philosophical, religious, or political justice, provided it abides by specific conditions.
The idea of justifying war under certain circumstances can be traced back at least to Roman and Greek philosophers like Cicero and Plato.[3] However, its significance is closely associated with the theories of Christian medieval scholars like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.[34] As specified by Jared Diamond, Augustine of Hippo was instrumental in shaping Christian thought regarding the definition of a just war, as well as reconciling Christian teachings of peace with the necessity for warfare in certain contexts.[35] Influenced in part by Cicero’s texts, Augustine maintained that war could be justified to protect the state, rectify injustices by neighboring nations, and expand state power in cases where a tyrant would be overthrown.[6]
According to Ulrich Luz’s interpretation; “After Constantine, Christians had a responsibility regarding war and peace. Celsus had already bitterly questioned whether Christians, by withdrawing from society, aimed to enhance the political influence of savage and lawless barbarians. This inquiry marked a new reality; from that point forward, Christians and churches had to choose between adhering to the gospel’s teachings, which included renunciation of violence, and responsibly engaging in political influence, seen as an act of love towards the world.” Augustine of Hippo’s Epistle to Marcellinus (Ep 138) is a prominent illustration of this “new type of interpretation”.[36]
Proponents of just war theory blend a moral distaste for warfare with an acknowledgment that war may sometimes be warranted. The criteria of the just war tradition serves as a guide in determining whether engaging in conflict is morally acceptable. Just war theories strive “to differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized military force”; they seek “to envision how the employment of force might be limited, rendered more humane, and ultimately directed toward achieving enduring peace and justice.”[37]
The tradition of just war considers the morality of using force in two aspects: when it is appropriate to resort to armed force (concerned with jus ad bellum) and what is permissible in employing such force (focused on jus in bello).[38] In recent developments, a third category—jus post bellum—has been introduced, which regulates the justice of ending wars and peace treaties, as well as the prosecution of war offenders.
Holy War
In 1095, during the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II proclaimed that certain wars could be considered not only a bellum iustum (“just war”), but could, under certain conditions, elevate to the status of a bellum sacrum (holy war).[39] Jill Claster, dean of New York University College of Arts and Science,[40] describes this as a “remarkable change in the ideology of warfare”, transforming the rationale for war from being simply “just” to also “spiritually beneficial”.[41] The ecclesiastical endorsement of the notion of “holy war” marked a pivotal shift in Christian perspectives on violence; “Pope Gregory VII authorized the Holy War by significantly changing the Church’s approach to war… Previously, a knight could only receive remission of sins by laying down arms, but Urban invited him to attain forgiveness ‘in and through the exercise of his martial skills’.” A holy war was delineated by the Roman Catholic Church as “a conflict that is not only just but sanctifying; that is, a war that bestows positive spiritual merit upon those who partake in it”.[42][43]
In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux expressed: “‘The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more assuredly; for in striking, he serves Christ, and when he falls, he saves himself…. When he inflicts death, it is to the benefit of Christ, and when he suffers death, it is his own advantage.”[44]
JonathanRiley-Smith states,
The agreement among Christians regarding the application of violence has undergone a significant transformation since the crusades were fought. The just war doctrine, which has predominated for a considerable portion of the past two centuries—asserting that violence is a malady that can, in certain contexts, be justified as the lesser evil—is fairly recent. While it has assimilated certain aspects (the standards of legitimate authority, just cause, right intent) from the ancient war theory that first emerged around a.d. 400, it has also dismissed two foundational beliefs that supported all medieval just wars, including crusades: firstly, that violence could be wielded in service of Christ’s aims for humanity and could even be directly sanctioned by him; and secondly, that it represented a morally neutral force which derived its ethical implications solely from the motives of the perpetrators.[45]
Genocidal Warfare
The Biblical narrative of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho was utilized to rationalize genocide against Catholics by Oliver Cromwell.[46]: 3 [47] Daniel Chirot, a professor specializing in Russian and Eurasian studies at the University of Washington,[48] interprets 1 Samuel 15:1–3 as “the sentiment, clearly articulated, that because a historical injustice occurred, justice requires genocidal retribution.”[46]: 7–8
Inquisition
The Inquisition comprised a set of institutions within the judicial framework of the Catholic Church dedicated to combating heresy.[49] The Spanish Inquisition is frequently referenced in popular literature and historical accounts as a prime example of Catholic intolerance and oppression. The estimated total number of individuals processed by the Inquisition throughout its existence is around 150,000; using the rates of executions noted in trials from 1560–1700—approximately 2%—the rough estimate of those executed would be about 3,000. Nonetheless, the actual fatality rate was likely higher, according to research from Dedieu and García Cárcel pertaining to the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. The number of executions is presumed to be between 3,000 and 5,000.[50] Approximately 50 individuals met their end at the hands of the Mexican Inquisition.[51] This total includes 29 individuals labeled as “Judaizers” executed between 1571 and 1700 out of 324 prosecuted for practicing the Jewish faith.[52]
During the Portuguese Inquisition, the primary targets were individuals who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, known as Conversos, or New Christians, often referred to as Marranos, due to suspicions that they were secretly engaging in Jewish practices. Many of these individuals were originally Jewish refugees from Spain who had migrated to Portugal. It’s estimated that the number of victims of the Portuguese Inquisition stands at about 40,000.[53][54] A significant emphasis of both the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the concern over Jewish anusim and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly due to their larger presence in Spain and Portugal compared to other regions in Europe, and partly due to ongoing doubts regarding their commitment, stemming from assumptions that they may have reverted to their previous faiths.
The Goa Inquisition functioned as the branch of the Portuguese Inquisition operating in Portuguese India and across the larger Portuguese Empire in Asia. Established in 1560, it faced a brief interruption from 1774 to 1778 and was ultimately dissolved in 1812.[55] According to surviving records, H. P. Salomon and Rabbi Isaac S.D. Sassoon assert that between the initiation of the Inquisition in 1561 and its temporary cessation in 1774, approximately 16,202 individuals were tried by the Inquisition. Of these, 57 were sentenced to death and executed, while another 64 were executed in effigy (a sentence applied to those who either fled or died in incarceration; in such cases, both the remains of the deceased and the effigy were cremated together).[56] Others faced milder penalties or penance, yet the ultimate outcomes for numerous individuals tried by the Inquisition remain uncertain.[57]
In the latter half of the 16th century, the Roman Inquisition took charge of prosecuting persons accused of a vast array of offenses associated with religious doctrine, alternative religious perspectives, or diverse spiritual beliefs. Out of 51,000–75,000 cases assessed by the Inquisition in Italy post-1542, roughly 1,250 concluded with death sentences.[58]
The era of witch trials in Early Modern Europe[59] was characterized by widespread moral panic fueled by the belief that malicious Satanic witches posed an organized threat to Christendom from the 15th to the 18th centuries.[60] Various forms of punishment were imposed on individuals convicted of witchcraft, including imprisonment, whipping, fines, or exile.[61] In the Old Testament, Exodus 22:18 states, “Thou shalt not allow a sorceress to live.”[62] Many faced capital punishment for witchcraft during this time, whether through burning at the stake, hanging, or beheading.[63] Similarly, in the New England Colonies, individuals condemned for witchcraft were executed via hanging (See Salem witch trials).[64] Historical consensus regarding the total number of executions for witchcraft ranges from 40,000 to 60,000.[65]
The legal foundation for certain inquisitorial practices stemmed from Pope Innocent IV’s papal bull Ad extirpanda issued in 1252, which specifically allowed (and established the correct conditions for) the application of torture by the Inquisition in order to extract confessions from heretics.[66] By 1256, inquisitors were granted absolution if they utilized torture instruments.[67] “The vast majority of sentences appear to have consisted of penances…”like sporting a cross stitched onto one’s apparel, undertaking pilgrimage, etc.”[68] When an individual was found guilty of persistent heresy, the inquisitorial court was mandated by law to transfer the accused to the secular authorities for definitive punishment, at which stage a magistrate would decide the consequence, commonly execution by fire, though the punishment varied according to local legislation.[69][70] The statutes encompassed prohibitions against specific religious offenses (heresy, etc.), and the repercussions included execution by burning, although life imprisonment or exile were typically applied. Consequently, the inquisitors generally understood the impending fate of anyone so handed over, and they cannot be regarded as having isolated the process of establishing guilt from its consequences.[71]
With the exception of the Papal States, the establishment of the Inquisition was dismantled in Europe during the early 19th century, following the Napoleonic Wars, and in the Americas, it was terminated after the Spanish American wars of independence. The institution persisted as a faction of the Roman Curia, but in 1904, it was rebranded as the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office”. In 1965, it was renamed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[72][73]
Christian Terrorism
Overview
Christian terrorism includes violent acts perpetrated by groups or individuals who employ Christian motivations or objectives as a rationale for their behaviors. Similar to other types of religious terrorism, Christian extremists have depended on interpretations of the principles of their faith—in this instance, the Bible. Such factions have referenced Old Testament and New Testament passages as justifications for acts of violence and murders, or they have aimed to precipitate the “end times” depicted in the New Testament.[74]
These readings often diverge from the interpretations held by established Christian denominations.
Forced Conversions
After the Constantinian transformation, Christianity became intertwined with government. While anthropologists have demonstrated that throughout history the interplay between religion and politics has been intricate, it is undeniable that religious institutions, including Christian ones, have been employed coercively by governments, and that they have also utilized coercion themselves.[75] Augustine defended governmental force in his Epistle 185, A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists, rationalizing coercion from scripture. He refers to Jesus striking Paul during Paul’s vision on the route to Damascus. He also mentions the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:22–23. Such short-term suffering for the sake of eternal salvation was a charitable and loving act, in his opinion.[76]
Instances of coercive conversion to Christianity encompass: the Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I,[77] the enforced conversion and violent absorption of pagan tribes in medieval Europe,[78] the Inquisition, including its occurrences in Goa, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain, the compulsory conversion of indigenous children in North America[79] and Australia.[80]
Support of Slavery
Early Christianity varied in its opposition, acceptance, or disregard for slavery.[81] The early Christian views on slavery arose from Christianity’s foundations in Judaism, and they were also influenced by the broader culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments acknowledge the existence of the institution of slavery.
The earliest surviving Christian teachings regarding slavery are attributed to Paul the Apostle. Paul did not condemn the institution of slavery, although perhaps this was not for personal reasons (similar to Aristotle). He instructed that Christian slaves should serve their masters with full dedication.[82] Nothing in the passage endorses slavery as a naturally valid or divinely sanctioned institution. Instead, Paul’s discourse regarding the obligations of Christian slaves and the duties of Christian masters redefines the institution, even if it doesn’t call for outright abolition. In antiquity, the slave was viewed as a commodity. Aristotle posited that friendship between a master and a slave was impossible as they shared nothing in common: “a slave is a living tool, just as a tool is a lifeless slave.” Paul’s perspective is markedly different.
He describes the slave as a “slave of Christ,” one who desires to fulfill “the will of God” and who will obtain a “reward” for “whatever good he does.” Similarly, the master is accountable to God for his treatment of his slave, who belongs ultimately to God rather than to him. This implies that the slave, no less than the master, is created in God’s likeness. Therefore, he possesses immeasurable worth and profound dignity. He is to be treated appropriately. In such a context, slavery, although still slavery, could never resemble the same form of institution that was imposed on non-Christians. It was this change (derived from recognizing all individuals as being created in God’s image) that ultimately eradicated slavery.[83] Tradition identifies Pope Pius I (term c. 158–167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217–222) as former slaves.[84]
Nearly all Christian leaders prior to the late 15th century acknowledged the institution of slavery, within specific Biblical constraints, as consistent with Christian theology.[85] In 1452, Pope Nicholas V established the hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as “enemies of Christ”.[86]
Genesis 9:25–27, the Curse of Ham, states: “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.” This passage has been utilized to rationalize racialized slavery, since “Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham’s descendants as black Africans.”[81][87] Anthony Pagden contended that “This interpretation of the Book of Genesis easily merged into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were consistently depicted as black. Subsequent pseudo-scientific theories would evolved around African skull structures, dental configurations, and bodily posture, aiming to establish an irrefutable argument—rooted in whatever the most compelling contemporary discourse happened to be: law, theology, lineage, or natural science—justifying why one segment of the human race should remain in perpetual servitude to another.”[88]
Rodney Stark argues in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[89] that Christianity played a vital role in abolishing slavery globally, a view echoed by Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[90] These scholars point out that Christians who believed slavery was morally wrong based on their religious principles led the abolition movement, and many of the early abolitionists were motivated by their Christian beliefs and by a yearning to actualize their view that all individuals are equals before God.[91]
Modern Christians typically denounce slavery as unethical and contrary to divine will. Only fringe groups like the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate organizations operating on the extremist margins of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate for the reinstatement of slavery.[81] Full supporters of Christian Reconstructionism are scant and are marginalized among conservative Christians.[92][93][94] Aside from these exceptions, all Christian faith communities now reject slavery, perceiving the practice as unacceptable.as being incongruent with fundamental Christian tenets.[81][85]
Violence Against Jews
An undercurrent of animosity toward Judaism and the Jewish community emerged among Christians during the formative years of Christianity, continued through the centuries that followed, fueled by various factors, including doctrinal differences, the Christian ambition for converts,[95] mandated by the Great Commission, a misinterpretation of Jewish beliefs and rituals, and the notion that Jews are antagonistic toward Christians.[96]
Throughout the ages, these perspectives were bolstered by Christian sermons, artwork, and conventional teachings, all of which conveyed disdain for Jews.[97]
Contemporary antisemitism is primarily characterized as aversion to Jews as an ethnicity, a variant of racism, rather than animosity towards Jews as a faith community, since its modern interpretation is rooted in 18th century racial ideologies. Conversely, anti-Judaism is termed as animosity towards the Jewish faith, a sentiment that is based in but more severe than critiques of Judaism as a faith; however, within Western Christianity, anti-Judaism evolved into antisemitism in the 12th century.[98]
Christian Stance Against Violence
Historian Roland Bainton depicted the early church as pacifist—a phase that concluded with Constantine’s rise to power.[99]
During the initial centuries of Christianity, numerous believers abstained from military duties. Indeed, there are notable instances of soldiers who converted to Christianity and thereafter declined to participate in warfare. They faced execution due to their refusal to combat.[100] The dedication to pacifism and the dismissal of military service is attributed by Mark J. Allman, an academic in the Department of Religious and Theological Studies at Merrimack College,[101] to two core principles: “(1) employing force (violence) was perceived as contrary to Jesus’ teachings, and service in the Roman army necessitated the veneration of the emperor as a god, which constituted a form of idolatry.”[102]
In the third century, Origen commented: “Christians could not kill their foes.”[103] Clement of Alexandria asserted: “Above all, Christians are not permitted to correct the misdeeds of sins through violence.”[104][105] Tertullian passionately opposed all varieties of violence, regarding abortion, warfare, and even judicial executions as forms of murder.[106][107]
Pacifist and nonviolent resistance traditions have persisted into modern times. Among such religious organizations are Jehovah’s Witnesses; they are politically neutral and were notably one of the few religious factions to oppose conscription during WW2.[108][109][110]
Several contemporary Christian denominations and communities were founded specifically on nonviolence principles, including conscientious objection to military service as central tenets of their faith.[111] Members of the Historic Peace Churches, such as Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and the Church of the Brethren, reject warfare based on their conviction that Christian existence is incompatible with military conduct, as Jesus commands his disciples to love their adversaries and abstain from violent actions.
In the 20th century, Martin Luther King Jr. and others incorporated the nonviolent philosophies of Gandhi into a Baptist doctrine and political stance.[112]
In the 21st century, Christian feminist scholars have highlighted their perspectives by opposing violence towards women.
Image Source: HTWE / Shutterstock
