The first question: According to Philip Jenkins, how has the conquest of Canaan narrative shaped Christian and Jewish approaches to divinely sanctioned violence? (Answer in 200-250 words) Philip Jenkins’ work helped me see how scripture has been used to justify violence—and how those justifications evolve across history and context. Below is my short reply of 221 words:
Philip Jenkins argues that the biblical conquest of Canaan – especially in the Book of Joshua – has profoundly shaped Jewish and Christian views of divinely sanctioned violence. The narrative, in which God commands the Israelites to destroy entire populations, has historically been used to justify violence under the banner of divine will. From the crusades to colonial expansion, this story has served as a theological framework for portraying conquest and extermination as righteous acts. Yet Jenkins highlights the discomfort this narrative provokes, prompting many interpretations to spiritualize or allegorize the violence. It’s continued presence in liturgy and scripture forces religious communities to grapple with the moral implications of sacred texts. This story illustrates how scripture can inspire faith while also legitimizing violence. Figures like R.A. Torrey, founder of American Fundamentalism, interpreted the slaughter of the Canaanites as a necessary act: “The Canaanites had become a moral cancer threatening the very life of the whole human race… Cutting out a cancer is a delicate operation, but often it is the kindest thing a surgeon can do… The kindest thing that God could do… was to cut out every root and fiber of these grossly wicked people.” Jenkins’s analysis challenges us to consider how religious communities interpret difficult texts and whether sacred violence can ever be reconciled with modern ethical commitments.
The second: Why was the execution of Michael Servetus a key event in the development of debates over religious toleration? (Answer in 200-250 words) I explored how his death exposed the limits of Reformation-era freedom and sparked debates that still echo today. Below is my short reply of 240 words:
The execution of Michael Servetus in 1553 was a pivotal moment in the history of religious toleration, exposing the limits of reform-era pluralism. Condemned for heresy by both Catholic and Protestant authorities, Servetus was ultimately burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin’s leadership. His death revealed that even within emerging Protestant movements, dissenting theological views were not tolerated. The brutality of his execution sparked widespread debate, especially among thinkers like Sebastian Castellio, who famously wrote, “To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man.” Castellio’s writings laid early groundwork for the idea that religious disagreement should not be met with violence, arguing that coercion in matters of faith contradicted the teachings of Christ. In contrast, John Calvin defended Servetus’s execution, stating, “Is it reasonable that heretics should murder and poison souls with their false doctrines, and the sword ordained by God be prevented from touching their bodies, and the whole body of Christ be lacerated so that stench of one rotten member should be untouched?” Calvin’s view reflected a broader belief that heresy endangered not just theology but the moral fabric of society. Servetus’s fate became a symbol of the dangers of dogmatism and the urgent need for freedom of conscience. His death catalyzed broader discussions about the moral and political necessity of religious tolerance, challenging future generations to reconcile faith with human rights and ethical pluralism.
The third: What are the key areas of agreement and disagreement between free will theism and process theism on the question of the problem of evil? (Answer in 200-250 words) I found this one especially interesting—two theological frameworks, both trying to reconcile suffering with divine power, yet diverging on how much control God actually has. Below is my short reply of 200 words:
Free will theism and process theism both reject the notion that God unilaterally determines all events, emphasizing that genuine human freedom is essential to understanding the existence of evil. Both perspectives affirm that God does not will evil and that suffering often arises from the misuse of creaturely freedom. However, they diverge significantly in their understanding of divine power. Free will theists maintain that God is omnipotent but voluntarily limits divine control to preserve human freedom. In contrast, process theists argue that God is inherently limited in power and cannot unilaterally prevent evil or override natural processes.
This distinction has profound implications for how each tradition approaches divine responsibility, prayer, and hope for justice. Free will theists believe God could intervene but often chooses not to, while process theists assert that God simply cannot intervene in certain ways. The tension between divine power and the presence of evil is captured in Epicurus’s enduring question: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
The final question: How does Cavanaugh understand the religious/secular distinction? How did it come about? (Answer in 250-300 words) His critique of the modern myth of secular neutrality challenged me to rethink how power and violence are framed in supposedly “non-religious” contexts. Below is my short reply of 300 words:
William Cavanaugh argues that the distinction between religious and secular is not a natural or timeless division, but a modern invention rooted in the rise of the nation-state. In his view, this binary was constructed during the early modern period to delegitimize certain forms of belief and consolidate state power. By labeling some forms of violence as religious and others as secular, emerging states could portray themselves as rational, neutral, and peacekeeping, while casting religious actors as irrational and prone to conflict. Cavanaugh challenges the idea that religion is uniquely violent, pointing out that secular ideologies – like nationalism or liberalism – have also fueled massive violence, such as in world wars. He argues that what counts as religion is often defined in contrast to what the state wants to claim as its own domain. This framing allows the state to monopolize legitimate violence while marginalizing alternative sources of moral authority. As Cavanaugh asks, “what becomes of the dividing line between the secular and religious—upon which the whole argument depends—if the secular is a form of religion?” The religious/secular divide, then, is not descriptive but political – it serves to justify certain power structures. Cavanaugh’s critique is central to debates in religion and violence because it questions the assumptions behind how we assign blame and authority. It also invites us to rethink how peacebuilding might look if we move beyond those constructed categories. “The common notion that religion is peculiarly prone to violence depends on the idea that these secular matters have less of a tendency to promote violence; it is commonly assumed that this is so because they have to do with purely mundane affairs. Religion on the other hand, is seen as peculiarly incendiary because it raises the stakes to another level, where reason is trumped by passion.”
Scoring 100% felt great, but more than that, it affirmed that I’m engaging with these ideas in a meaningful way. As an atheist, I’m not here to defend doctrine—I’m here to understand how belief shapes action, especially when it comes to violence and peace. This test reminded me that asking hard questions is just as important as answering them.
Sources:
Jenkins, P. (2011). Laying down the sword: Why we can't ignore the Bible's violent verses. HarperOne.
aB . All Rights Reserved . 2025
