Christian Jihad was a book on the Christian perspective on the relationship between the Church, State and Warfare. The authors, Ergun Caner and Emir Caner, are two former Muslims who converted to Christianity. They provide an eclectic perspective of Islam, Christianity and their relationship now and during the Crusades. The Caner brothers dealt with the age old question, “Is it right for a Christian to kill another person during battle?” This has been asked by countless Christians especially recently with America currently participating in a war. In addition to this they show the relationship that existed between the Church and State throughout history. Beginning with the reign of Emperor Constantine, the Church has been in constant struggle over what its relationship should be with the government. This book was very insightful and helpful in answering some of the more difficult questions of the Christian faith.
The Caner brothers began their address of Christianity and Warfare by defining a word that has been mostly linked with terrorism in this present day, Jihad or Holy War. They discuss the similarities between the ideas of Pope Urban II and Usamah Bin Ladin on the subject of declaring “Holy War” on a different religious group in the name of god. Both Bin Laden and Pope Urban promised salvation as the reward of those “Holy Warriors” who died or killed for a “Holy Cause”. The “Warrior” would be obligated to kill others and die for the glorious “Cause”. Holy Martyrdom was best achieved if one took as many people with him as possible. Pope Urban declared this Jihad against the Muslims in direct contradiction to the direct teachings of Jesus. The Caner Brother’s point in this comparison was to show that there really was no difference in the declaration of Jihad by the Christians of the first and second century to that of the Muslims on Jews, Christians and everyone else who was not Muslim. The conclusion was- any war that was and is fought in the name of or political gain of a deity or person is not grounds for a just war and clearly Christians should not participate in such a campaign.
Apparent Pacifism in scripture was one of the reasons that the Caners used for Christians not participating in warfare. They showed that Christ was adamant in His followers “Turning the other cheek” when wronged. Even the Church Fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian especially believed that it was problematic for a Christian to serve in the military because violence rebels against the principles of the Christian life. Tertullian went even further and asks if a Christian could in good conscience swear oaths to a master other than Christ, imprison anyone, guard pagan temples, fly the banner of a regime that persecutes Christians or even be buried in an unchristian manner? Tertullian deemed such acts as possible expressions of denial of Christ’s power and control over His Creation. The Church Fathers were adamant in their beliefs about not shedding blood and being empathetic towards the hunted or persecuted. Up until the reign of Emperor Constantine, the Church was mercilessly persecuted by the government and the conversion of Constantine heralded in a new era of some freedom of religion. Sadly this new relationship between the Church and State would produce an unhealthy society in the future. The Caners showed the progression of this exceedingly unhealthy relationship in their book Christian Jihad.
From the time of Constantine to the Fall of Rome in 410 AD the Church was the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome was constantly gaining power and precedence over the other Bishops in the Empire and after Rome fell, the people looked to the Bishop of Rome for political as well as spiritual guidance. This led into the elevation of the Roman Bishop or the Pope as the head of the Church. With the coronation of Charlemagne by Emperor Leo the III exhibited the fact that the Church was the one who “Wielded the Sword of power” in the Empire. Charlemagne made certain that his son would not be subjected to the same type of political slight and did not invite the Pope to his son’s coronation. During the dark ages and crusades the powers at be were always in constant struggle as to who would control the empire, the Church or State. This struggle would come to fruition during the Protestant Reformation.
The Caner brothers described the Protestant Reformation in a rather “shady light”. They portrayed the Anabaptists as the only group that was hunted down and persecuted during the time of the Reformation. While they may have been persecuted by the Roman Catholics and the Reformers unjustifiably, there were other groups who were persecuted as well. The Caner brothers only looked at one particular group and portrayed everyone else (Catholics and Reformers) as being the enemy when in reality they were all followers of Christ. If the Caner brother’s main thesis was granting religious freedom to all, then shouldn’t the same luxury be afforded the Catholics and the Reformers? Now granted, there was evil and all sorts of injustices that were committed during that time. The ends did not justify the means in any way. But does portraying an entirely biased opinion on the subject justify the end? The discussion heated when they began discussing the relationship between the Church and State.
The Caner brothers also looked at the relationship between the Church and the State at the time. However they only looked at it from the view of the Roman Catholics, the Reformers and the Anabaptists. The Catholics believed that the Church should be closely tied with the government and in some cases have power over the government. While the Reformers took two different approaches following Calvin and Luther mainly. Calvin believed that the believer was a citizen of the State and the Church, that the State gains it’s authority directly from God and that the Church is to renovate the world including the State while the State is to help the Church with evangelism. Luther basically held the same beliefs as Calvin except that the Church should not impose it’s precepts onto a lost world. The Anabaptists believed that there was a distinct separation between the Church and State and that neither one should impose on the other’s rights. They believed that believers belonged to the church while the non-believers belonged to the state. What the Caner brothers failed to bring into the discussion was the thoughts of Spurgeon who lived only a short while after these other men. Spurgeon takes a nice medium between the extremes. While scripture supports more of Spurgeon’s beliefs, the Caner Brothers did not make a very just case. Everyone brings their own pre-suppositions to any conflict, granted. But perhaps a more thorough look at all the parties involved would have provided better insight on the subject.
Overall, the Caners took a very interesting and perhaps untouched view of the Crusades in Christian Jihad. They proved that no one country, religious group or person is without some guilt for past or current grievances. They showed that the Crusades, Reformation and current times have not occurred with out people, even professing Christians, have behaved in a very “Un-Christ like” manner. The Caners left the reader challenged to right the wrongs of the past, and to prayerfully not repeat them.