With Due Respect: Christianity has not stopped violence

 

Screenshot from Attila Total War

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
-- Matthew 26:52

One of the new criticism I heard of Christianity is that it has not stopped violence. This is especially prominent during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. After all, both Russians and Ukrainians are mainly Eastern Orthodox Christians, and the Russian Church has endorsed the invasion.

However, this is myopic political and philosophical position. Just because one major church supports the war, it does not mean that Christianity as a whole has never stopped violence. We would not apply the same standards elsewhere. For instance, just because the Imperial Japanese of the 1940s were Buddhist, it does not mean all Buddhism is violent.

Furthermore, prominent church individuals have condemned the invasion of Ukraine. The former Archbishop of Canterbury (Head of the Anglican Church) condemned both Russian Premier Putin and the Russian Church for their actions. The Anglican Church has offered to open discussion with the Russian church with regards to peace.

Let me go back further and show some examples on how the Church as a system attempted to reduce violence in the world.

A) Papal mediation between Chile and Argentina
While I am not a Roman Catholic, I have to recognize the times when Roman Catholic Church has stepped up. In 1983, the Pope mediated a potential conflict between Chile and Argentina (both countries are majority Roman Catholic) and both countries renounced the use of force.

B) Just War theory (Thomas Aquinas)
In Medieval Europe when most nations claimed to be Christian, there were academic attempts to restrict violence. By giving clear criteria, nation states would need to meet a certain standard when waging war. 

Thomas Aquinas distilled a Just War to three conditions: the authority of the sovereign, the purpose of the war must be just, and finally the conduct and intent of the involved warriors 

C) Inquisition
Unlike popular portrayals on how violent the Inquisition (a church judicial system to root out heresy), the Inquisition was an attempt to reduce violent and rampant accusations of heresy.

In fact the Inquisition is considered to be the first attempt at a universal court system, where evidence is needed for a guilty verdict, and biased testimonies were dismissed. Some historians have even argued that the Inquisition laid the foundation for the modern legal systems of Europe. As a Singaporean, it is interesting to note that Singapore law is based on English Common Law which has parts of its origin in the Inquisition.

Conclusion
While one can claim that the culture of Christianity has led to violence, one must also acknowledge the efforts the church took towards towards peace.

HMS Hermes in flames, 1943

For more reading:
God's Philosophers (2009)

With Due Respect: What about the Inquisition?

[Editor's note: The author and editor of this post does not support violence. He is merely highlighting the events leading up to the Inquisition, and what it intended to do.]

Mass execution of Harvestmen? No, they were already dead.

Say Inquisition, and immediately images of people burning at the stake instantly enters the minds of many. Some may even mouth the name "Torquemada", the most cruel of the Inquisitors. Torquemada influenced Spanish royalty to banish Jews and burn heretics

The violence of the Inquisition is sometimes raised as evidence of the violence of Christianity.

In this post, I will examine Inquisition in the Medieval era.

An advancement in law and order
With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, Western Europe was ruled by a various, fleeting warlords. As such, the church was seen as a continuity of government as was given authority in civil affairs (Hannam, 2009).

Due to internal conflicts, many individuals and groups were accusing each other of being a heretic, witch or practising magic. If one was from a noble family, one could abuse his reputation to get his enemies persecuted.

As a result, the church came up with a law system called the Inquisition. It was a novel attempt to create an evidence-based legal system. This prevented wanton finger-pointing. For instance, several witnesses were required to justify a testimony. Furthermore, the witness had to be independent of the involved parties.

In addition, confirmed heretics were not sentenced to death. They were given a chance to recant their false beliefs, and avoid being executed. Only repeated heresy resulted in execution by secular authorities.

But it was not perfect
As with any human system, it is not perfect, and prone to influence from politics and corruption. The Spanish Inquisition was especially violent because the desire to remove Islam and Judaism from the Spain and Portugal, the political placement of the Inquisition under royal authority and the ongoing wars.

Conclusion
The Inquisition was not intended to be mindless violent reaction to heretics. It was designed to be a lawful (and merciful) response in an age of intolerance.

Even the most violence version in Spain managed about 826 executions out of over 44,000 cases tried (Henning, 1992).

References
Hannam, J. (2009) God's Philosophers

Henning, G. (1992) The database of the Spanish Inquisition in: Monhaupt (Heinz), Simon (Dieter), ed., Vorträge zur Justizforschung. Geschichte und Theorie, 1993, Band 2, pp. 43-85

Further reading
Huffington post

Theology 1.0: What is the Inquisition?

Martin Luther, a target for the Inquisition

A dark period for Christianity?

In a period where accusations of heresy and witchcraft were rampant, the Western Churches  (Catholic) started a series of trials in 1184 to combat such claims. Their punishments include imprisonment, banishment and execution. The last execution was carried out in Spain in 1826. This series of actions is called the Inquisition.

This is often raised as a sore legacy of Christianity but is the story really as simple as that?

Law and Order

Regardless of whatever you think of it now, we must remember that the Inquisition was set up as the first attempt at a universal legal system to investigate heresy (Hannam, 2010). Before the Inquisition, a victim could be convicted based on the accuser's reputation. In other words, if a noble accused a peasant of committing theft, the peasant would be found guilty.

The Inquisition (introduced by the Catholic Church) set up the requirement of evidence (in the form of witnesses) in the persecution of a alleged heretic. Furthermore, it provided the accused some level of defence as he/she could name people who had "mortal hatred) for him/her, and this would dismiss the accusations.

In addition, while torture was used, execution (by handing heretics over to secular authorities) was often avoided by the Catholic as it was seen as a failure to convert.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

A modern person may ask, "why was fighting heresy so important?" Unlike religious disagreements in developed countries now, we must remember that heresy was often associated with rebellions and disorder.

Let's clear the air

Let me state some things clearly before I conclude:

1) I am not justifying the violence or punishment that happened during the Inquisition.

2) Fatalities did happen during the Inquisition, sometimes to innocent people.

3) Sometimes proper procedures are not carried out during the Inquisition.

But if we think about, are our modern secular courts perfect? While we must remain appalled for the wrongly sentenced, we also must recognise the Catholic Church for initiating a system to protect the innocent accused.

References

Hannam, J (2010) God's Philosophers

For further reading

Wikipedia

With Due Respect: My Christian friend is a bad example!

"The worst people I know are Christians"

When I was in the military, one of the reasons I hesitated in becoming a Christian was because some of the worst people I worked with were Christians. They would avoid responsiblities, feign illnesses and were undependable. Their terrible work ethic and moral behaviour were reprehensible to me.

Why should any non-Christian be attracted to Christ in the light of the behaviour of his followers?


Some Christians have done terrible stuff
Now I have to admit this: Some Christians have done terrible stuff in history. Many people have listed the examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition that have caused many deaths in the name of Christ. Torquemada, one of the Spanish Inquisitors, deported more than 40,000 Jews and was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 2,000 people during the Spanish Inquisition.

If following Christ maybe leads to people doing horrible things, it is little wonder people find Christianity a turn-off.

Some non-Christians have also done terrible stuff
However, we need to be fair. Non-Christians have also done many terrible things in the name of their worldview. During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao of China caused the death of millions for his view of atheisitic Communism. During World War II, the Japanese killed millions in the name of their divine Emperor or Shinto Buddhism.

If not following Christianity also may result horrific things, where does this lead us?

What about the issue of truth?
However in philsophy, this line of logic (that the argument is bad because the person saying it is bad) is an ad-hoc argument (Sire, 2006). In other words, an argument is cannot be considered invalid just because a person is of bad character.

As someone who is seeking the truth, one must be able to explore statements independent of whoever says it.

Conclusion
In our effort to discern the truthfulness of arguments, one must be wary not to focus on the ills of the speaker. However, in Christianity we have Jesus saying that he is God. Why not spend time discerning his claim?

References
Sire, J. (2006) Why Good Arguments Often Fail