Why have Christians committed atrocities (e.g., Crusades, Inquisitions, colonialism) in the name of God?

Historical Background and Context

Throughout history, certain groups or individuals calling themselves Christians have committed grave acts of violence, such as the Crusades, various stages of the Inquisition, and atrocities tied to colonial expansion. These events involved incursions into foreign lands, forced conversions, coercive interrogations, and other abuses. While these historical episodes cannot be denied, it is vital to recognize that such behavior often sprang from motivations that conflicted with the teachings found in Scripture (Berean Standard Bible). Political interests, cultural conflicts, and personal ambitions frequently intermixed with religious rhetoric, resulting in acts that veered away from the biblical mandate to love God and neighbor.

During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, for example, historical records indicate that European rulers, knights, and even merchants sought power, land, and influence under the banner of religious piety. Scholars like Jonathan Riley-Smith (noted medieval historian) have highlighted how many participants had mixed motives: some viewed themselves as embarking on a legitimate pilgrimage to holy sites, while others saw an opportunity for conquest and wealth.

Scriptural Principles on Violence and Love

Scripture provides consistent teaching about the value of human life and the call to love rather than harm others. In the Berean Standard Bible, Jesus teaches, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). Elsewhere, believers are reminded, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil” (Romans 12:17). These cornerstone commands, when rightly understood and applied, are fundamentally at odds with waging war or committing violence for personal gain or under misguided religious compulsion.

Further, throughout both Old and New Testaments, God’s people are frequently warned against acting on impulsive human anger or distorting divine justice (cf. Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19). The Scriptural narrative contends that vengeance belongs to God, not human institutions or armies seeking to expand their influence. It is here that one sees the gulf between biblical teaching and the misguided decisions made by religious or political authorities in past centuries.

The Role of Human Fallibility and Sin

A critical factor in understanding any atrocity is recognizing that human sinfulness leads to moral corruption and injustice. Scripture describes the pervasive influence of sin, stating, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Even those sincerely professing faith can succumb to pride, greed, or the desire for power. Historical accounts demonstrate that leaders who claimed Christian allegiance sometimes proceeded under the sway of these vices rather than following the humility and love championed by the Bible.

Additionally, Scripture warns against false teachers who distort truth for selfish ends: “Many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). In periods such as the Inquisition, religious structures occasionally were co-opted by individuals seeking to exert control. Fear and coercion replaced the Spirit-driven fruits of love, joy, and peace (cf. Galatians 5:22–23). This unfortunate history does not demonstrate the failure of Scripture; rather, it reflects human beings forsaking its clear directives.

Misinterpretation and Misuse of Scripture

One driving force behind atrocities carried out under a Christian banner has been the misuse of Scripture. The Bible has been selectively quoted or twisted to justify actions incongruent with its overarching message. The prophet Isaiah warns of those who “call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). This caution holds true whenever biblical passages are severed from their context and used to justify personal or political agendas.

Church reformers and biblical scholars throughout history have pointed out that shortcuts to biblical interpretation often overlook entire bodies of teaching—particularly exhortations to mercy, forgiveness, and seeking peace with all (Hebrews 12:14). The weight of the textual and manuscript evidence upholds the consistent emphasis on loving God and neighbors. Therefore, whenever professed Christians acted otherwise, it highlights a discrepancy between what the Bible says and how individuals or institutions chose to act.

Political Motivations Masked as Religious Duty

Beyond theological confusion, many of these historical atrocities overlay what were essentially political expansions or power struggles with religious justifications. During European colonialism, for instance, economic exploitation and national interests typically rode the coattails of missionary efforts. In some cases, sincere missionaries risked their lives to share what they believed was saving truth; in others, colonial governments enforced policies under the guise of “spreading Christianity” while pursuing material gain and subjugating local populations.

Historians like Samuel Eliot Morison have noted how explorers and early colonists often claimed a religious mission, yet their actions frequently contradicted biblical norms of compassion and justice. This dynamic underscores how political ambitions or cultural hegemonies can masquerade under a banner of faith. It does not reflect the command to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).

Scriptural Condemnation of Unjust Violence

When Scripture is studied in its entirety, it denounces unjust violence and any effort to coerce belief by force. Jesus Himself declared that His kingdom is “not of this world” and refused to meet violence with violence (John 18:36). In the early Church, those who followed Christ often did so under persecution, demonstrating patience and love rather than aggression (cf. Acts 7:59–60, regarding Stephen’s martyrdom).

Moreover, biblical examples—such as God’s instructions to Israel to uphold stranger and foreigner rights in their midst (Leviticus 19:33–34)—demonstrate that genuine faith calls for empathy, care, and just dealings with outsiders. Consequently, any systematic oppression or crusade for dominion over others in the name of God stands as a direct conflict with the totality of Scriptural revelation.

Individual and Institutional Responsibility

Throughout the centuries, believers and churches have undergone reform and self-reflection over past misdeeds. Councils, theologians, and laity have at various points denounced and apologized for actions deemed incompatible with Christian teaching. This trajectory shows that individuals and institutions may gradually align themselves more closely with biblical imperatives of love and justice.

It remains each person’s responsibility to test teaching and shared values against “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). That counsel includes admonitions such as, “Let all you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14). Whenever a teaching or action stands at odds with this divine directive, it cannot rightly be presented as the will of God—even if undertaken under a self-proclaimed Christian identity.

Reaffirming the Call to Genuine Discipleship

Despite these tragic chapters in history, the heart of Christianity still centers on reconciliation with God and neighbor through Jesus Christ’s redemptive work. True discipleship is characterized by striving to mirror divine compassion and “to walk as He walked” (1 John 2:6), reflecting humility and the willingness to serve rather than dominate. Over the centuries, numerous Christian movements—such as the early Anabaptists, various monastic orders devoted to acts of mercy, and contemporary missionary endeavors—have devoted themselves to peace, education, and care for the suffering.

This contrast between violent misuse of faith and its authentic practice reminds all readers and observers that Scripture’s consistent teaching, archaeological corroborations, and historical manuscripts point to a God who calls His people to holiness and love, not conquest or tyranny. The overarching record of biblical faith, attested by extensive manuscript evidence from antiquity (including codices like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), underscores an ethic profoundly opposed to the atrocities sometimes committed in God’s name.

Conclusion: Understanding the Disparity

Atrocities committed in the name of God stem more from distorted motives, ignorance, or political exploitation than from the core principles laid out in Scripture. While these tragic historical realities should never be discounted, they do not negate the biblical call to love, justice, and humility. They highlight the critical need for discernment, continual reliance on biblical truth, and renewing one’s mind toward genuine obedience to what Jesus termed the “greatest commandments” (Matthew 22:36–40).

Ultimately, the atrocities underscore human failure rather than divine intent. The Bible remains consistent in emphasizing the sanctity of life, the necessity of loving others, and the pursuit of righteous peace. Such teachings serve as a corrective lens through which all believers—and all who look on—can recognize that authentic faith compels people to emulate the character of God in Christ, not the corrupt ambitions of fallen humanity.