Warfare is about militant advance; the prosecution of a vigorous, unrelenting campaign to take territory. Lacking this driving determination, pivotal and historic conflicts have been lost, such as in 1940, when Italy came into the war on the side of Germany. Mussolini spoke haughtily of initiating a ‘drive to the Nile’, and sent a massive force of five heavily-equipped divisions to the border of Egypt, which was defended by British and Indian troops. The Italian commander, Marshal Graziani, gave the order to this huge force to move forward. The Allies, having little more than two divisions at their disposal, were heavily outnumbered, while in the air the Italians had a five-to-one superiority over the RAF.

General Richard O’Connor, the British commander, was puzzled when the Italian army, having rolled forward 50 miles, suddenly stopped. Reconnaissance officers crept forward and saw through their binoculars an astonishing sight. Hundreds of Italian engineers and labourers were busy digging in and erecting long-term fortifications, even laying a great pipeline for water. One lieutenant radioed back – ‘It looks as though they have settled here for ever.’ The drive to the Nile had ground to a halt.

General O’Connor was eager to strike, and moved quickly. Early in the morning, as the sun came up, British and Indian forces attacked with maximum impact, finding all the Italians in bed except sentries, and the cooks preparing breakfast. The battle lasted under two days, Allied tanks and infantry prevailing with ease. More than 20,000 Italian soldiers were taken prisoner, along with (as the war historians love to tell us) countless bottles of wine and mountains of spaghetti.

What was the problem that halted the Italian offensive? It was their commander, Marshal Graziani. He would not fight. He moved his enormous army forward, vacillated and dug in, and it cost him, ultimately, his entire army.

How like our British constituency of reformed churches this is! We have fellowships throughout the land equipped with the Word of God and the great doctrines of the faith. We have an abundance of food (fine sermons preached in our pulpits), a superb heritage of example (in our history), and we look after our troops (church members), but so many of our churches are not moving. Where is the thirst for victory? Where is the evangelistic endeavour? How similar we are to a stationary army, and yet we are supposed to be the ‘church militant’. The warfare illustration has tremendous suggestive power for the stance and vigour of Bible-believing churches, and we naturally want to know how prominent this theme is in the Bible. After all, if it is set forth as a standard for us, we are bound to be shaped by it, both as individuals and churches.

The martial texts of the New Testament apply to the work of the ministry in general and to evangelism in particular. If we can show that this is so, then as believers we are bound to strive with ‘military’ zeal in the reaching of souls. 1 Corinthians 9.7, for example, employs battle language to describe ministers, Paul saying, ‘Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?’ We know that the warfare here includes soulwinning because Paul mentions planting a vineyard, an obvious figure for evangelism. In 2 Corinthians 5.18-20 and 6.4-10 Paul lists the rigours which commend a person serving in the ministry of reconciliation, mentioning various actions, and saying – ‘By the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left’. This refers to a Roman soldier with his shield in one hand and his attacking sword in the other. Does this resemble our evangelistic stance today?

In 2 Corinthians 10.3-5 the apostle uses very remarkable language: ‘For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) . . . bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.’

These words may properly be applied to the believer’s battle for holiness, but they are intended to apply even more to the battle for souls. Paul is actually defending himself against those who said he was not an apostle, but to do this he mentions the great principles of militant evangelism to which he was committed . . . to be continued