Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder uses the word “Constantinian” to describe Christians who believe in the need and value of force and compulsion. I like it myself, but I’m not sure if anyone else would.

I was also going to suggest “Romans,” but that might to easily be confused with Roman Catholic. Old Testament scholar Millard Lind writes in “Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel” that God has told God’s people Israel to depend for their security solely on God and God’s miraculous intervention — not their own efforts or exertions — and that to trust in armies (especially professional armies) and human kings is not a mark of being God’s faithful people. He almost, but not quite, calls such a reliance “Canaanite,” and I suppose we could too, but would anyone get it?

If we really wanted to be cruel (and somewhat unfair; I apologize in advance to my former co-religionists), we could call all those “Christians” who rely on force and power and put their trust and faith in the state and its rulers “Muslims.”

The Best of Charles H. Featherstone

Gentlemen, the correct term is certainly either “warvangelicals” or “bombvangelicals.”

The Best of Laurence M. Vance

Tom, I like it. Adam Dada suggests LeHayists or Dobsonites. Jordan Bullock says, Martians or Marsists. Bill Goss and Michael Robb say, heretics. Roger Young suggests CHINO: Christian in name only. A friend from Norway adds: Iscariots.

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

How about “religerrents,” a combination of “religionists” and “belligerents”?

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo