For most Britons, the British war effort was experienced and understood within a culturally Christian context. Therefore, beyond the Society of Friends and various sectarian groups, it required little effort on the part of active Christians (here defined as committed church members and churchgoers) to identify with its aims. Nevertheless, the prosecution of the war meant that combatant servicemen (women could not technically serve as combatants) were presented with a series of ethical challenges. From the justification for taking another life in armed combat, through to the killing of civilians through ‘obliteration bombing’, the conduct of war challenged the core biblical precepts of ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (the Sixth or, for Catholics, Fifth Commandment) and ‘Love your enemies’ (Luke 6:27). Nevertheless, this chapter will argue that, with the help of a theological lead from the British churches, committed Christians were usually able to rationalize and reconcile the consequences of their actions.

From the outset, however, it must be emphasized that the sheer range of specialized and technical roles present in Britain's armed forces meant that few Christians were directly involved in the act of killing. For those who were, the taking of life occurred at different points across a spectrum of intimacy, from anonymous long-range artillery bombardment through to savage hand-to-hand combat. For Alan Allport, the ‘twin prospects of killing and being killed frightened and fascinated soldiers above all things in the Second World War’. If Joanna Bourke has emphasized the primacy of the requirement to kill – ‘The characteristic act of men in war is not dying, it is killing’ – Alan Robinson's research on advice sought from chaplains led him to conclude that the former weighed more heavily than the latter on British servicemen, who were ‘more concerned about being killed than killing’. Still, while some struggled with the ethics of taking a life, others plainly thrived in the front line, finding an authenticity and primitive energy in combat. Sean Longden has concluded that ‘For most, killing was an unpleasant necessity, required to ensure survival. However, others relished the violence.’ In religious terms, Michael Snape has argued that army chaplains helped men to navigate the moral complexities of taking life and to ensure that ‘the rhetoric of hate was avoided and that the principles of the just war were applied’. Significantly, as Joanna Bourke has observed, ‘An insistence upon personal moral integrity was typical of those engaged in fighting.’