I am answering another question publicly which was written to me privately. I don’t this with every single question. Just those I think others might like to know the answer to. The idea of a warrior saint came the history of the Templar Knights. All the knights were not male. That’s pretty much what Ana is. A Templar Knight.
Self-Defense in Classical Christianity
Christian Doctrines of Active and Forceful Resistance Against Evil
A (100) Knights Templar. Authentic Templarism, embodying the essence of true knighthood and damehood, is firmly anchored in the tradition of Sacred Activism, as the ultimate form of “Faith in action”. This practice is rooted in the most ancient idea of the “spiritual warrior”, as the foundation of the medieval model of the “warrior monk” embodied in the Order of the Temple of Solomon as the legendary Knights Templar.
However, the modern era is increasingly dominated by a counter-culture of “political correctness”, blaming and shaming activists with propaganda, to discourage, censor and suppress all forms of opposition to evil. This is imposed by certain pseudo-religious criticisms, which promote passive acquiescence and tolerance of all forms of wrongdoing and injustice.
Such propaganda especially targets Christianity. Frequently, whenever Christians actively stand up against abuses or defend against aggression, they are told they should “turn the other cheek”, “love your enemy”, “forgive”, and “trust in God”, and are typically accused of being supposedly “un-Christian”.
The original doctrines of classical Christianity all conclusively prove that the typical anti-activist criticisms are false. Indeed, simply looking at the relevant Christian scriptures in context exposes the common criticisms as superficial misinterpretations, which were never a part of the genuine religion.
This report is provided to empower all Christian activists, armed with the power of the Truth, backed by the facts and evidence fully presented below, to easily defend their Sacred Activism for the benefit of humanity, as being entirely consistent with the authentic doctrines of Christianity.
Disclaimer: Self-Defense Primarily by Non-Violence
I (100) Knights Templar. In the modern era, and in the tradition of Sacred Activism, resistance to evil rarely requires any physical use of force. The type of “self-defense” usually needed is to promote Truth, upholding positive Christian values which justify active opposition to the forces of evil.
While Christianity essentially teaches non-violence, Biblical scriptures often describe fighting against evil in terms of justified lawful self-defense in armed conflict, with reference to killing. In context, it appears self-evident that such doctrines are primarily analogies.
Indeed, the Christian doctrines of “self-defense” prove that when even armed force would be universally justified, then certainly mere social, political or legal activism (all simply free speech) is overwhelmingly warranted, and cannot possibly be criticized.
Active Resistance to Evil in Biblical Scripture
T (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters. The Biblical Sixth Commandment states: “Thou shalt not kill [murder].” (Exodus 20:13) In the original Greek, the word for “kill” used here is ‘Phonéfseis’, which actually means “murder”, specifically limited to “intentional unjustified homicide” . This same book of the Old Testament also provided a clear example of justifiable homicide in self-defense: “If a thief be found breaking [in at night], and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him [i.e. no guilt for his death]” (Exodus 22:2).
Biblical scholars in 1706 AD confirmed that the Sixth Commandment “does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defense, nor the magistrate’s [Judiciary] putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life” . Modern 21st century Biblical scholars reconfirmed that “What the sixth commandment forbids is the unjust taking of a legally innocent life. … God’s people have always recognized that there are some situations where taking a life is not only permitted but actually warranted.” 
In the Old Testament, just before the Magi High Priest Melchizedek blessed Abraham with a Eucharistic sacrament, Abraham went to battle to rescue and defend innocents from aggressors: “Abraham… armed his trained servants… and pursued them… and smote them… and [returned] his brother Lot… and the women also, and the people.” (Genesis 14:14-16) It is precisely for this battle, fighting for a just cause, and thus representing good against evil, that Melchizedek blessed Abraham (Genesis 14:18-20).
This scripture embodies the timeless principle that active pursuit, and even armed lethal force, is wholly justified for the protection of the innocent against the wrongful actions of evil-doers, and is even worthy of blessings as a Holy endeavour. Based upon this principle, the legal doctrine of “self-defense” has always inherently included the lawful justification of “defense of others”.
In another Biblical account, when the builders of Jerusalem learned of covert plans by adversaries to murder them, they responded as follows: “Nevertheless we… set a watch against them day and night” (Nehemiah 4:9). They “set the people… with their swords, their spears, and their bows… and said… fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” With this strong level of vigilance and defensive preparation, “every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded” (Nehemiah 4:13-18). This scripture further evidences the ancient doctrine of active armed self-defense, including the defense of others, by the Faithful in a community of the people of God.
The Biblical King Solomon wrote: “Two are better than one… And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12) This is a clear mandate to forcefully resist evil, and to actively defend against aggression. It emphasizes the defense of others, further expanding that concept into the collective defense of the Faithful of God, who must unite and stand strong to overcome evil together.
The 13th century Roman Catholic Liturgy for Blessing of New Knight highlights this central theme: “O God, Thou hast only permitted the use of the sword to curb the malice of the wicked and to defend the right. Grant, therefore, that Thy new Knight… may use it always in defense of all that is just and right!” (Benedicto Novi Militis, 13th century)  This evidences that even for military-style armed knighthood, all of the strength and skills of Knights were dedicated exclusively to resisting evil, defending the good, and upholding rights and Justice.
The Council of Nablus in 1120 AD established that even Clergy are permitted to carry and use arms in self-defense. The enacted manuscript noted that in 1119 AD, “Antioch had been defended by the Patriarch following the Battle of Ager Sanguinis”, and one of its Canons specified that “Clergy should have no guilt if he takes up arms in self-defense, but he cannot take up arms for any other reason”. This rule continues as part of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law as “customary law” of the Church (Canon 2, Canon 27). 
“Trust in God” is No Excuse for Passive Non-Resistance
R (100) Knights Templar. Religious or spiritual activists are often criticized with the modern pseudo-philosophy that Faith supposedly requires an exaggerated “trust in God”, presumably in the form of complete passive non-resistance in the face of evil. Those Faithful who take decisive action to stand up against wrongdoing are thus implicitly accused of being “hypocrites”, by the superficial idea that activism allegedly contradicts having “trust in God”. This wholly ignores the concept that we can also “trust in God” to inspire and guide us to take positive actions. Moreover, as with other fallacies of so-called “philosophies”, this criticism is proven false by the authentic doctrines of genuine religion.
Man Must Fight, but God Gives the Victory – In Biblical scripture, the Magi High Priest Melchizedek blessed Abraham after his victory in battle defending innocents against aggressors, saying: “Blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” (Genesis 14:20)
This evidences a core theological doctrine from the Ancient Priesthood: While victory in battle comes from God, nevertheless it remains necessary to fight the battle, in order to create the situation in which God can then intervene to grant such victory.
In the Old Testament account of the defense of Jerusalem by its builders, the scripture states: “Nevertheless we made our prayer unto our God, and set a watch against them day and night”, with every worker and their families heavily armed in defense (Nehemiah 4:9). These armed defenders were told: “Be not ye afraid of them: Remember the Lord”. Specifically through this active armed defense by the people, “God had brought their [enemies’] counsel to nought”, precisely because “every one had his sword girded by his side” (Nehemiah 4:13-18).
This demonstrates the real doctrine of the role of God from Biblical scripture: Prayer to God is actually for support of one’s own vigilance, for strength in one’s own active efforts, and for influencing the aggressors, all entirely based upon one’s own actions of establishing a defense.