Christianity and violence
| This article is of a series on |
| Criticism of religion |
|---|
Christianity and violence have been associated repeatedly during history, both in acts of violence and in opposition to such violence.[1]
Such religious violence has been carried out by persons, organizations, or institutions in furtherance of Christian dogma, or in support of those who share their beliefs.[2] In Letter to a Christian Nation, critic of religion Sam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[3]
There is also a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence,[4] and Christianity includes prominent traditions of nonviolence. During the first few centuries of the religion's existence, Christians were strict pacifists.[5]
Christian opposition to violence
Despite the occurrence of violence by some Christians, Christianity has a long tradition and trend of opposition to violence. Some early figures in Christian thought explicitly disavowed violence. Origen wrote: "Christians could never slay their enemies. For the more that kings, rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more Christians have increased in number and grown in strength."[6] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence."[7] Several present-day Christian churches and communities were established specifically with nonviolence, including conscientious objection to military service, as foundations of their beliefs.[8] In the twentieth century, Martin Luther King, Jr. adapted the nonviolent ideas of Gandhi to a Baptist theology and politics.[9] In the twenty-first century, Christian feminist thinkers have drawn attention to opposing violence against women.[10]
In response to the accusations of Richard Dawkins, Alister McGrath suggests that, far from endorsing "out-group hostility", Jesus commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation". McGrath agrees that it is necessary to critique religion, but says that it possesses internal means of reform and renewal, and argues that, while Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to Jesus' standard of acceptance, Christian ethics reject violence.[11]
Christian thought on justified violence
Religious scholar Mark Juergensmeyer wrote: "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side. The bloody history of the tradition has provided images as disturbing as those provided by Islam or Sikhism, and violent conflict is vividly portrayed in the Bible. This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. Attacks on abortion clinics, for instance, have been viewed not only as assaults on a practice that Christians regard as immoral, but also as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good that has social and political implications."[12]: 19–20 The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms to Christians.[12]
Holy war
The Bible contains instances of religiously mandated wars.[13] Examples include the story of Amalekites (Deut 25:17–19, 1 Sam 15:1–6), and the commandment to exterminate them,[14] the story of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1–18),[15] and the battle of Jericho (Joshua 6:1–27).[16]
Theologian Robert McAfee Brown identifies a succession of three basic attitudes towards violence and war during the history of Christian thought.[5] The earliest Christians were strict pacifists, while by around the third century CE, the concept of just war emerged, later to be expanded to include holy war or crusade.
According to Jared Diamond, Saint Augustine played a critical role in delineating Christian thinking about what constitutes a just war, and about how to reconcile Christian teachings of peace with the need for war in certain situations.[17] Augustine concluded that war could be justified to protect the innocent or for self-defense, but that wars of aggression are unjust and that it is never acceptable to target neutral parties.
During the medieval period, Pope Gregory VII and Pope Urban II sanctified the concept of holy war by allowing knights to obtain remission of sins "in and through the exercise of his martial skills" as opposed to giving alms, and defined holy war as "a war that confers positive spiritual merit on those who fight in it."[18][19]
Daniel Chirot argued that the Biblical account of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho was used to justify the genocide of Catholics during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.[20]: 3 Chirot also interprets 1 Samuel 15:1–3 as "the sentiment, so clearly expressed, that because a historical wrong was committed, justice demands genocidal retribution."[20]: 7–8
In the twentieth century, the concept of just war was further extended by critics of capitalism in Latin America, to justify the overthrow of governments deemed to be oppressive to the poor, as one branch of the liberation theology movement.[21]
Violence by individuals
Violence by individuals or by small groups has been carried out in the name of Christianity many times through history, but there has been disagreement about whether such acts are really justified by Christian teachings. Theologian Miroslav Volf has examined the question of whether Christianity fosters violence, and has identified four main arguments that it does: that religion by its nature is violent, which occurs when people try to act as "soldiers of God"; that monotheism entails violence, because a claim of universal truth divides people into "us versus them"; that creation, as in the Book of Genesis, is an act of violence; and that the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, generates violence.[22] Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation; Christians have perpetrated some of the worst pogroms as they remembered the crucifixion of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."[23] In each case, Volf concluded that the Christian faith was misused in justifying violence.
Terrorism
Christian terrorism is religious terrorism by Christian sects or individuals, the motivation for which is typically rooted in an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible and other tenets of faith.
Historical instances
Blasphemy as a crime punishable by death
Blasphemy against God and the Church was a crime punishable by death in much of Europe. 18 year old Thomas Aikenhead was the last person to be executed in Britain for the crime of blasphemy in 1697. He was prosecuted for saying on a cold Edinburgh night, "I wish I were in that place Ezra calls hell so I could warm myself." George Rosie wrote in the newspaper The Scotsman, "The killing of Thomas Aikenhead, like the hounding of Salman Rushdie for the same 'offence,' was a disgrace. . . a prime example of a God-fixated state killing a man in an attempt to stop the spread of an idea."[24] John William Gott was the last man to be convicted of the crime of blasphemy in Britain in 1921, being sentenced to imprisonment with 9 months hard labour for writing pamphlets that described, amongst other things, Jesus Christ entering Jerusalem as 'like a circus clown on the back of two donkeys'.[25]
Homosexuality as a crime punishable by death
European Christian scholars have historically argued that the crime of homosexuality should be punishable by death, based upon passages in the Bible.[26] Canon law called for capital punishment for homosexuality based on the findings of Christian legal scholars: "Bishop Wala, the leading churchman of the Frankish kingdom, convened the Council at Paris... the council explicitly endorsed the death penalty for sodomy. Moreover, Canon 34 not only endorsed Leviticus but also interpreted Paul's Epistle to the Romans as advocating capital punishment.... Paul accuses non-believers of a long list of sins, in which homosexuality is given a special prominence. Then he adds that the 'judgement of God' makes such sinners 'worthy of death.'"[26] Saint Thomas argued that homosexuality, even between consenting adults, was immoral and an offence of heresy against God, and therefore punishable by death (as heresy was).[27]
Crusades
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2010) |
Alan Dershowitz and other analysts assert that Christian leaders relied on Christian doctrines to justify the Crusades.[28]
Inquisition
Christian leaders and Christian doctrines have been accused of justifying and perpetrating violence during the Inquisition.[29] A legal basis for some inquisitorial activity came from Pope Innocent IV's papal bull Ad exstirpanda of 1252, which authorized and regulated the use of torture in investigating heresy. The inquisition expanded in size and scope following the twelfth century in response to the Church's fears that heretics were exerting improper and harmful influence on members of the church. The inquisition was initially used by the church to help it identify persons that were heretics. Later, the Church expanded the inquisition to include torture as a way to determine the guilt of suspected heretics.[30]
The Spanish Inquisition was a tribunal established in 1478. The Spanish Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave. Although the Inquisition was technically forbidden from permanently harming or drawing blood, this still allowed for methods of torture.[31]
Witch hunts
Christian leaders and Christian doctrines have been accused of justifying and perpetrating violence during witch hunts in Europe.[32] Feminist Matilda Gage in her 1893 book Women, Church, and State asserted that the Christian church was responsible for many of the deaths of an estimated 9 million witches during the Middle Ages.[33] However, later scholars have concluded that her figures were erroneous, and that the church played only a minor role in the European witch-hunts.[34]
Historical documents that have associated the church with witch-hunts include Malleus Maleficarum (1486) and the 1484 bull of Pope Innocent VIII.[35] During what is known as the Little Ice Age, Innocent VIII, in his papal bull Summis desiderantes (5 December, 1484) instigated severe measures against magicians and witches in Germany. The grip of freezing weather, failing of crops, rising crime, and mass starvation was blamed on witches. He issued the bull to inquisitors Heinrich Kramer and Jacobus Sprenger, to systemize the persecution of witches.[36][37]
New World and Native Americans
| This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2010) |
Christian leaders and Christian doctrines have been accused of justifying and perpetrating violence against Native Americans found in the New World.[38]
Violence in the Roman Empire
Early Christians frequently resorted to violent acts to expand and defend their religion; one famous quote attributed to this period is "There is no crime for those who have Christ".[1]
Albigensian Crusade, 1208
Jonathan Barker cited the Albigensian Crusade, launched by Pope Innocent III against followers of Catharism, as an example of Christian state terrorism.[39] The 20 year war led to an estimated 1 million casualties.[40] The Cathar teachings rejected the principles of material wealth and power as being in direct conflict with the principle of love. They worshiped in private houses rather than churches, without the sacraments or the cross, which they rejected as part of the world of matter, and sexual intercourse was considered sinful, but in other respects they followed conventional teachings, reciting the Lord's prayer and reading from Biblical scriptures.[40] They believed that the Saviour was a "heavenly being merely masquerading as human to bring salvation to the elect, who often have to conceal themselves from the world, and who are set apart by their special knowledge and personal purity".[40]
Cathars rejected the Old Testament and its God, who they named Rex Mundi (Latin for "king of the world"), who they saw as a blind usurper who demanded fearful obedience and worship and who, under the most false pretexts, tormented and murdered those whom he called "his children" They proclaimed that there was a higher God — the True God — and Jesus was his messenger. They held that the physical world was evil and created by Rex Mundi, who encompassed all that was corporeal, chaotic and powerful; the second god, the one whom they worshipped, was entirely disincarnate: a being or principle of pure spirit and completely unsullied by the taint of matter - He was the god of love, order and peace.[41] According to Barker, the Albigenses had developed a culture that "fostered tolerance of Jews and Muslims, respect for women and women priests, the appreciation of poetry, music and beauty, [had it] been allowed to survive and thrive, it is possible the Europe might have been spared its wars of religion, its witch-hunts and its holocausts of victims sacrificed in later centuries to religious and ideological bigotry".[39]: 74 When asked by his followers how to differentiate between heretics and the ordinary public, Abbe Arnaud Amalric, head of the Cistercian monastic order, simply said "Kill them all, God will recognize his own!".[40]
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, 1572
In the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre followers of the Roman Catholic Church killed up to 100,000 Huguenots (French Protestants) in mob violence. The massacres were carried out on the national day celebrating Bartholomew the Apostle. Pope Gregory XIII sent the leader of the massacres a Golden Rose, and said that the massacres "gave him more pleasure than fifty Battles of Lepanto, and he commissioned Vasari to paint frescoes of it in the Vatican".[42] The killings have been called "the worst of the century's religious massacres",[43] and led to the start of the fourth war of the French Wars of Religion.
See also
References
Further reading
|