Was King Phillip's War a Religious War?

Susan Juster does not give a comprehensive definition of "religious violence," resorting to a more comparative definition, stating that "Religious wars, by definition, seem to be more brutal, more zealous, and less tempered by regret or remorse than other forms of warfare."

Jill Lepore, in describing King Phillip's War seems content to frame it in the binary definitions of "nonstate" and "state" war: "Primitive or nonstate warfare has been understood to be limited, not especially lethal, and usually immediately motivated by prestige, revenge, or sport, but ultimately driven by resource scarcity or the need to regulate the population; civilized or state warfare, by contrast, has been understood to last longer, to be bother better organized and more fatal, and usually motivated by economic, territorial, or political concerns." (118)

Lepore suggests that King Phillip's War was a nonstate war, being started by execution, the Indians are motivated by revenge and desire for repopulation. She also quotes Roger Williams in saying that the Indian conflicts were "farre less bloudy and devouring than the cruell Warres of Europe." (118)

Where does religion fit into Lepore's binary definition? Juster suggests that the state wars of Europe were religious in nature, would this make the nonstate King Phillip's War non-religious? Lepore certainly shows enough evidence to suggest that religion was a concern for both Indians and English.  Is "sacred violence" a useful category in the 17th century? Could the early American colonists truly commit anything but a "religious" war?