Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Does Christianity approve wars to protect or spread the faith or to defeat the enemies of the Christ?

If so, what are the conditions where faith-wars are endorsed?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by David, Pavel, Andrew, Caleb Dec 9 '12 at 0:47

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Addressed in various forms many times already, including… Voting to close as a duplicate. – David Dec 7 '12 at 18:35
@David Stratton in that question it asks about participating in wars in general, I am asking about wars for faith. – Anixx Dec 7 '12 at 19:57
Jesus the Christ did not. However Christianity does and has. I didn't post this as an answer because I'm sure I'd be attack. However history proves me correct. – user1054 Dec 8 '12 at 3:31
I'm actually voting not to close, because, as Anixx says, this is a different question. The one question is "Can a Christian go to war?" This one is "Can a Christian use war to further the faith?" I agree there is overlap, but this is a good test case – Affable Geek Dec 8 '12 at 13:25
@DanAndrews I'm hoping this question gets re-opened, and I would love to see the philosophical basis for your answer. As mentioned in my answer, there have been wars where the cause has been stated to be faith, but I argue its really just politics. As such, I'd love to see Christian doctrine that endorses this position. – Affable Geek Dec 10 '12 at 1:51

Pretty much, No.

In general, most Christians reject any idea of coercion in regards to "spreading the faith." Orthodoxy (from Orthos meaning right, and doxa meaning belief) is typically considered more important.

No less a luminary than Martin Luther, in commenting on Romans 12:1, for example, wrote:

“Paul does not say: I command you; for he is preaching to such as are already Christians and godly by faith, in newness of life. These must not be coerced by means of commandments, but admonished to do willingly what has to be done with the old sinful man in them. For any person who does not do this willingly, simply in answer to kind admonitions, is not a Christian; and any person who wants to achieve this result by force applied to such as are unwilling is not a Christian preacher or ruler, but a worldly jailer. A preacher of the Law comes down on men with threats and punishments; a preacher of divine grace coaxes and urges men by reminding them of the goodness and mercy which God has shown them. For He would have no unwilling workers nor heedless service; He wants men to be glad and cheerful in the service of God. Any person who will not permit himself to be coaxed and urged with sweet and pleasant words, which remind him of the mercy of God abundantly bestowed upon him in Christ, to do good joyfully and lovingly to the honor of God and for the benefit of his fellow men, is worthless, and all that is done for him is labor lost. If he is not melted and dissolved in the fire of heavenly love and grace, how can he be softened and made cheerful by laws and threats? It is not a man’s mercy, but the mercy of God that is bestowed on us; and this mercy Paul wants us to consider in order that we may be incited and moved by it to serve God.”

Historically, Just War Theory as promulgated by the famous fifth century theologian Augustine, said that a war should only be fought when protecting others from egregious harm - an extension of God's protection for the widow and orphan, as well an extension of the Golden Rule.

A good summary of jus ad bellum, meaning just causes for war are as follows:

Just Cause: War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger,” i.e. to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human life existence, and to basic human rights.

Competent Authority: The right to use force must be joined with the common good; war must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.

Right Intention: War can be legitimately intended for only the reasons set forth as a just cause.

Last Resort: For war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.

Proportionality: The destruction to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms. Destruction applies in both the temporal and spiritual sense.

Those incidents in which the faith was either "protected" or "extended" by coercion (say, the Inquisition, incidents during colonialization) are typically considered to be negative things by modern Christians today. Even the most right-wing and fundamentalist types like Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell never advocated for a return to these methods. Even Fred Phelps uses "Crusades" as a perjorative! Typically, the most common example of a "faith war" would be the Crusades, and to be sure, religion did play a part in those wars. Grant you,

  • (a) that was nearly a thousand years ago and
  • (b) the Fourth Crusade in particular, in which Christian forces from Italy sacked the Christian capital of Byzantium (1204), shows that there was a lot more involved than just religion,

but it is usually the argument. Most other "Christian" conflicts, like the Thirty Years War, fall into the same category - they were political conflicts as much as religious ones.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. Can you clarify, is it permitted to go to war if Christian faith is in danger? For example, if a new government may impose Islamic or Atheist laws? – Anixx Dec 7 '12 at 20:01
Still no, or we'd be at war all over the globe. China... Countless other nations hostile to Christianity. – David Dec 7 '12 at 20:38
@David Stratton this could be because Christian countries do not feel enough strength. Compare with the German invasion in the USSR and with Western intervention during Russian civil war. – Anixx Dec 7 '12 at 20:41
@anixx none of those conflicts were justified on religious grounds. In both cases, the states mentioned were avowedly secular. – Affable Geek Dec 7 '12 at 21:50
@anixx - Even then, there's different 'levels' - most laws enacted under most governments are generally 'compatible' with Christians tenets (eg, "don't murder"). A law like 'You must renounce a religion' would probably be cause for civil disobedience (as in, not renounce your faith), rather than going to war. Theoretically, the 'protection' aspect could come into play if a nominally Christian nation was executing Musilims (their beliefs might be considered wrong, but they are still people)... As for strength... would some of the African nations qualify? – Clockwork-Muse Dec 8 '12 at 4:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.