This book provided a look at war, the Crusades, and killing in the name of religion from a very different perspective than what we’re used to. The Caners recounted the long history of the church’s involvement with the government and showed the average Americans reading this book that we can identify with Muslims in this respect. The book begins by giving us a picture of “Tom,” a terrorist lying in the bushes, waiting for the perfect moment to rid the world of a few supposed Devil’s workers. Whenever we think of a scenario like this one, we inevitably think back to September 11, 2001 when Muslim terrorists attacked America by running planes through some of our most prominent buildings. Why did this happen? They believed it was justified killing. They were killing in the name of Allah and believed they would gain an eternal reward for it.
These unprovoked, heinous hate acts turn our stomachs, but one point the Caners make in this book is that, looking back at our own history as Christians, it shouldn’t be anything new to us. They go into detail of the church’s own horrifying cruelty to “pagans” and talk about how the stance on religion being a part of the government has been constantly changing throughout history. The early church fathers took a pacifistic stance on war. The first thing that comes to mind when talking about the early church is that it produced a lot of martyrs. Because the Christians would not fight back and were also immensely passionate in their faith, they were subject to tortures of the worst kind. The killers had no way of being stopped since the Christians obviously weren’t stopping them. Slowly, though, Christians became more and more involved in wars up to the time of Constantine, when the church leaders themselves were calling Christians to join in the fighting.
Then came Augustine. He took the middle stance in this issue. He was not for complete pacifism, nor did he encourage believers to resort to violence immediately all the time. Instead, he advoacted the position that we must try every possible peaceable option to work out our differences. If all of those have been exhausted, we may fight, but it must be jusitified and honorable. While this was a wonderful thought, like all thoughts, when carried out it was not completely followed. “The Just War criteria had been replaced by a theology of retribution.” This is evidenced in the Christian Crusades.
The horrors produced by Christians is staggering. It is obviously a very dark time in Christian history, one that we ought to be ashamed of but also must remember. Sadly, the Caners say, too few Christians even know about this. And those who do only know a very watered-down version of the event. The increasingly gung-ho attitude for the Christians toward violence led up to the climax of the Crusades, when the government was finally run by the church. So much for pacifism and the separation of church and state. Viscious killings commanded by the church continued as they tortured non-Christians, just as the enemies of Christians in the early church had done. Deception and trickery ran rampant in the church. The persecutions continued well into the 18th century and were finally defeated on a large scale by the Spanish Constitution of 1869. Of course there have been disagreements and persecutions between different religions and sects since then, but not to the same extent. The main point of this book can be summed up in this: “Though it took several centuries to completely remove church-state association and allow each to perform their function properly, it did happen. Vestiges of state-supported churches and the exclusion of dissenters from general religious rights finally ended. Much blood was shed, but not in vain. The men and women who gave their lives for the faith have not only been rewarded in heaven by the heavenly Father, they also gave us a gift which is priceless as well.” The Caners hold to the view that the church needs to be almost completely separated from the state. They say that Christians can take part in government, but the government should have no control whatsoever on the church. Likewise, the church itself has absolutely no place to make decisions in the government.
This book obviously had a lot of thought and emotion put into it, but it has a few weaknesses. It is apparent from their ad hominem attack on Martin Luther and John Calvin what their stance is. These two great leaders of the faith obviously should not have advocated murder in any circumstance. However, I think the message of the book gets lost in these ullustrations. The Caners wrote this book to define the relationship between church and state. In the instances of these two men, the government is not involved whatsoever. What was the point of inserting them in this book? Apparently just to slam them. Ah, the war of words. As Augustine would say, was it justified? In the same way, the Caners tend to lose their focus throughout a lot of the book. I often found myself asking, “What does any of this have to do with the separation of church and state?”
This book started out with good intentions, but the blatant anti-Luther, anti-Calvin, pro-Anabaptist speeches toward the end were just ridiculous and unnecessary.
One memorable quote that I just can’t neglect to put in here would be this one: “Whereas Luther’s writings changed a Church, Hubmaier’s writings – in due time – helped change the world.” Wow. So in the Caners’ mind, Luther’s contribution to the very practice of Christianity was insignificant? Ouch. And obviously this Hubmaier guy was infinitely more influential than any church reformer. I mean, look at the world! Everyone is Christian now!
*I probably shouldn’t be writing so sarcastically about the Dean of my own school…oh well.

In conclusion, I was not very impressed with the writing or arguments in this book. I expected a lot more from such prestigious professors.