Buying a sword: thoughts on war [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Christopher Encapera

31-10-2004, 08:11 PM

Someone mentioned that "violence is never a means to an end for Christians". No doubt many of you have heard of the OPF (Orthodox Peace Fellowship) and some of the recent debates around the evil or virtue of war. I have been thinking and reading about this, and have come to the conclusion that the Commandment of our Lord to "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" is not a call to pacifism, at least not in every case. To put it bluntly, their is a place for "violence" in Christian life. Of course, the term "violence" has the negative sense of "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse" but also the neutral sense of "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force" (both from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).

For example, a deranged, evil man might enter my home with the intent to kill my children and rape my wife. Neither my children or my wife have the power to stop him, but I do. In the ensuing struggle, I come to the conclusion that the only way to stop this man, this enemy, is to hit him in the head with a blow that kills him. What does it mean in this instance to say that I did wrong, and that violence is not a "means to an end"? What would it mean to say (as is sometimes argued) that what I did was not virtuous, but a "lesser evil", and while certainly understandable, a more perfect following of our Lord would have been to sacrifice our lives, possibly being recognized as "martyrs"?

I realize this is a difficult subject, but the above example is most certainly not far fetched. I know personally many police officers and have talked to them about their personal experiences of having to decide to use violent, deadly force. Each one of the posters in this thread are personally protected, and your societies are kept in a relatively peaceful state, by the men and women of your military and police forces whose jobs by definition use "violence", even deadly violence. There are Orthodox Christians among them.

All this is not to deny a certain kind of Christian pacifism, with respect to monasticism for example. However, have we really thought through what a deep and profound pacifism really means? Does the Church really believe that it is our Lord's Will that all persons in every circumstance abhor a "violent" means, and become de facto pacifists? If so what does Romans 13 mean, and does Romans 12 somehow correct it? Of course, the above example for most of us is unlikely (God be praised), but I recoil a bit at the suggestion that, following from the Gospel necessarily, the highest road would be "chose to be sacrificed".

Owen Jones

31-10-2004, 08:23 PM

Any political leader who does not strike back at the nation's enemies when it has been attacked is derelict in his duty and should be removed from office. Turning the other cheek does not apply to a nation's obligations to defend itself.

Moses Anthony

31-10-2004, 10:33 PM

Geez; Is this a first or something! I agree with Owen.

A very long time ago there was a war movie made about a man who faced this dilemma, who after "getting religion", was faced with deadly combat. The movie was Sgt. York.

In the times I've read Fr. Arseny, I've been convicted by his love in the face of such barbaric evil. And yet, there was at least one time when he too reacted violently to protect another helpless prisoner. I'm personally conflicted in this in my vocation, as major uses of force are often the only alternative left to the officers to re-gain control of a situation. On the one hand we're commanded to "love...with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourself" However, we are also to plead for, and defend the widows, homeless and the orphan.

Maybe, it's so hard to come to terms with, because of some latent propensity for violence, who knows. But then, I see in this the rationalization for war/violence in the form of the Crusades.

the conflicted, sinful and unworthy servant

Fr Raphael Vereshack

31-10-2004, 11:23 PM

Christopher Encarpa wrote: "All this is not to deny a certain kind of Christian pacifism, with respect to monasticism for example. However, have we really thought through what a deep and profound pacifism really means? Does the Church really believe that it is our Lord's Will that all persons in every circumstance abhor a "violent" means, and become de facto pacifists?".

Remember that St Sergius of Radonezh blessed the army of Prince Dmitri Donskoy before the battle of Kulikovo Pole. It was through this battle that the Mongol yoke began to be lifted from Russia. There are many similar incidents in the history of Orthodoxy.

It is true that we do not have a dogma of justified warfare in Orthodoxy, ie an attempt to give us as clear a set of moral guidelines as possible. The fact is that discernment is always called for and what may be proper action for one may not be for another.

In general however I do not think we have a philosophy of pacifism in the Church. There is martyrdom- and the Church is even canonically clear that none must recklesslly throw oneself into this. In the desert of Sketis in Egypt I think it was- Bedouins were heard to be approaching. The elder told whoever was prepared for martyrdom to remain & whoever was not to depart.

On the other hand we have the defence of the nation- again not a clear cut concept morally speaking. But in general we do accept the defence of the nation especially when it involves the very moral/cultural/religious fabric of the people. I would submit that World War II was the moral war par excellence (for the Allies of course) of the 20th century. A war like this is not aggressive but rather defensive. It also most crucially has a moral element in it that almost all can identify with. It is not lightly that Churchill for instance saw the Second World War as a war in defence of Christian civilisation- even though he was not very churchly (Churchill not churchly?) himself. This in effect was what made most everyone- at home & in the war zone see themselves as part of the 'front'. This was what made any effort a sacrifice that would in turn morally justify the war.

I think in a general way we can transfer this to the local scene as it were- our home & family. The fact is that the Orthodox Byzantine state not only formulated the first sophisticated moral law code- the Justinian Code. Along with moral prescriptions were also laws to defend citizens from violence & injustice. Thus the state through its agents the police and courts does have a responsibility to defend. This also is Christian.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Alex Haig

01-11-2004, 03:54 AM

I think the problem is that we are wanting clear cut conditions when force is appropriate and when it is not, however these conditions are not easy to come by: I think we have to look at each case individually.

Firstly, above all we must remember Christ's command to love one another (John 13:34); why then are we doing this violent act? Is it through love or hate, humility or pride? This does not take away from the fact that the violence is itself a sin, and must be confessed. Personally I think it better in the first instance to simply confess the sin in Confession, eg "I have hit a man" rather than to try to justify your own sin by saying "a man was trying to attack my family so I hit him". The reason for this is simple: people, I have been told (and I'm not a Priest), are very good at confessing the sins of others, for example saying "Well, I was walking down a street and this guy pushed me and I fell over so I swore at him": another man's sin is between him and God and not for us to worry about. If a Priest, when hearing a confession, feels that more details are needed then he will ask you for it.

Secondly, I do not agree with Owen Jones's comment above: "Any political leader who does not strike back at the nation's enemies when it has been attacked is derelict in his duty and should be removed from office" (Post #921). Why? This, to me, seams to be talking almost directly on Bush's War on Terror. What would have happened if in the aftermath of the 11 September attack Bush had made a speech saying that he forgave bin Laden and al-Qaeda? Firstly, under Islamic Law, al-Quada would have to stop what they were doing, thus further alienating themselves from the Islamic world if they didn't. Secondly, he would be forgiving those who "tresspass against us" (Matt 6:12) showing us that he was brave enough to act upon the convictions of his belief which he says he holds so dear.

With love in Christ

Alex

PS, I am not trying to be party political and it is very easy to say these things three years after the event and when one is not having to make decisions on the spot, but I have just outlined an alternative scenario to the one we are currently living in which may have led to a more peaceful world.

(Message edited by ahaig on 01 November, 2004)

Christopher Encapera

01-11-2004, 05:05 AM

Interesting comments. James, what I am trying to get to the bottom of is rather you really ought to be "conflicted in this in my vocation" as you put it. What is the source of this conflict? Is it that you, being a sinner and knowing this, do not really trust yourself (and perhaps even the Grace of God during these times) when you must use violent means (I am assuming you do not regularly use deadly force as a corrections officer). Do you not believe that, with God's help, that yourself (or anyone else) is capable of knowing, to the extant that we can know, when a virtuous act of violence is before you? If this is the case, then why are you not forced into a de facto pacifistic position which would call (for sake of your integrity before God) for a change in profession?

Alex, Do you really believe that "...fact that the violence is itself a sin", because that is exactly what I wish to deny. In other words, I would like to know if our Orthodox Tradition allows for the possibility of a virtuous violence (personally and/or communally), and by extension, a virtuous war. Purposely avoiding rather the war in Iraq is itself specifically virtuous, do you know on what grounds you can deny this? I am thinking of Romans 13 for instance.

Fr. Raphael, I think it is interesting how you reason from the communal to the individual family (I believe I have always scene it the other way around). You mention that we do not have a dogma of just war. Do you think the Justinian Code could be a starting point for such a reasoning? I find it somewhat remarkable that you do not find more in Orthodoxy about along these lines, given the fact of the conflict between Islam and Orthodoxy through the centuries. Perhaps it is do to the fact that Orthodoxy was for all practical purposes soundly beaten (Dhimmitude and all the rest). In any case, would you agree with Alex that violence is in-of-itself a sin, an "evil", and should be confessed? For example, given my example above, would it necessarily follow that I had sinned in stopping such an attacker, even to the death of said attacker? If so, I believe we are back to a de facto pacifism.

Moses Anthony

01-11-2004, 07:29 AM

Christopher

It's not that I recognize my own sinfulness, nor the distrust I have of actions borne of private motivations. My conflict is between the life I know that God has called me to live, (a life of holiness, as He is holy) and the requirements of the job, in certain situations. I firmly believe that I'm here in this city because God led my family and I here. Which means, I'm supposed to be in the vocation I'm in as a Corrections Officer. The other side of this as to your point about pacifism, and a different profession: As I've said before, "What better place could there be, to "...let your light shine in the darkness."

One of, well, actually both of my name saints as I think of it, had problems with anger; Moses, Prophet and God Seer of Israel, and Moses, The Ethiopian/The Black. I didn't think much about this connection until later, when my priest counseled me to read passages from The Philokalia about overcoming anger. However,I -at this point- do not believe that dispassion equals pacificism. Peter, put up your sword, we have all heard and many have preached, but what of "..sell our cloak and buy a sword?"

Alex

Do you think if FDR had forgiven the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, that they would have been repentant, and the ensuing World War would never have happened? And can you be naieve enough to think that in the current political climate that President Bush would not have been thrown out of office if your course of action had been followed. One of the lines in the oath the President swears to when he is sworn in, is to "..uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States," that means to protect our national interests, and our borders. If either FDR or President Bush had not taken the course of action they did, they would have given the American people (and Congress) ample grounds to have them impeached. We have rulers over us , as the Apostle wrote, "..not for the punishment of those who do good, but for the punishment of those who do wrong." As corrections Officers, we are under an agency wide directive, that whenever force is used, no more force than is necessary to control the situation will ever be used, under penalty of termination and or, prosecution. Sometimes all that's needed is talk, so the case by case scenario would apply. What does it mean to you when the Apostle says that, "..if a man does not provide for his own family, he is worse than an infidel", knowing that like finances, security is a key issue to family (and personal) well being. There are a multitude of commands which we can apply with a broad stroke to all Christians, and yet not every Christian is in the exact same circumstance, and so the directive to one does not fit the enigma faced by another. Not even the Roman Centurion, whose servant Jesus healed, was compelled to leave his military service. However, we do know that his faith is commended by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Achh, the hour is late, and I'm babbling. Christopher, sometimes I wonder why it is that I've not succumbed to the pressure like many other Christians; and, sometimes I do wonder if God is through with me here as a Corrections Officer, although not because of having to use violent means when situations warrant it. The world would be a much darker place if Christians bailed out of every profession in which there was some perceived conflict in interpretation, which I believe, is why the Church is relegated to "four walls" on Sunday morning.

the sinful and unworthy servant

Alex Haig

01-11-2004, 01:44 PM

A couple of things. Firstly Romans 13 was mentioned and in particular, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil" (Rom 13:3). However, look at the historical context of this text. This was written at a time when the state was persecuting the Church, why then was this being said? Surely the real reason for this text is to tell us to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1).

In the early Church there were many Martyrs, however there are legal records of the trials which showed that some of those killed tried to pretend that they weren't Christians: these were not canonised (not to say that they didn't go to heaven, God is the only Judge of that). This then is submiting to the authorities, accepting the punishment that is given with joy.

Secondly, the threat to impeach a President does not mean that he shouldn't do what he believes is right, are we not called to follow Christ no matter what? This is a very difficult question. Personally I think that it is very difficult to be a ruler and a Christian particularly with a seperation of Church and State and where the people have so many different beliefs (and even when Church and State are not seperated).

With love in Christ

Alex

Fr Raphael Vereshack

01-11-2004, 04:02 PM

Dear Christopher,

A wonderful discussion about an important topic!

You wrote: "I think it is interesting how you reason from the communal to the individual family (I believe I have always scene it the other way around)." One can just as easily go the other way around from the individual & family to the communal- or just look at one aspect. I would think they each reflect on the other.

You wrote:"You mention that we do not have a dogma of just war. Do you think the Justinian Code could be a starting point for such a reasoning? I find it somewhat remarkable that you do not find more in Orthodoxy about along these lines, given the fact of the conflict between Islam and Orthodoxy through the centuries. Perhaps it is do to the fact that Orthodoxy was for all practical purposes soundly beaten (Dhimmitude and all the rest)."

I was thinking about the RC dogma of "just war": I recently read an example of this type of reasoning applied to how a Christian could determine the best way to vote in the upcoming American elections. At first sight it seemed like a good method of making a moral choice- but on further examination it was faulty both morally & logically. The fact is that the use of force is not usefully guided by a type of moral arithmetic- it will always take discernment guided by the Gospels, and a sense of what the Church provides from the past as examples for us.

In this sense I would say that the Justinian Code may provide a useful example of ways to see the issue of force. But again there is no hard & fast guide. After all, law also must be interpreted and the interpretation is as intrinsic to the process of law as the law itself.

The example of Orthodox-Islamic relations is I think a good one. Much of the time the Orthodox lived in lands conquered by Islam in a state of uneasy acceptance. Since Christians were "People of the Book" they had some sort of legal acceptance in Islam eyes but on the other hand they were second class. Most of the time Christians just tried to go peacefully about their business- at other times, especially in the 19th century, there were mass rebellions (in Greece & the Balkans) against the Turks. At times the Orthodox turned to martyrdom. I think it would be very useful to look into this as a Christian response. Pacifism I would submit is actually not a part of Orthodox tradition. By pacifism I mean a moral philosophy which teaches a total ban on forceful means both for the individual & the state.

One can also see how there was no clear cut rule about the use of force between Orthodox & Islamic states. Byzantium rarely launched aggressive wars against Islam. Mostly these were defensive. To a surprising degree Byzantium existed in peaceful co-existence with Islamic states from much of the 7th to 15th centuries. The one exception to this would be the wars of the Emperor Heraclius which were wars that 'took it to the enemy' (actually the Persians, not Islamic Arabs). I think there are also some good lessons when we compare Byzantine wars vs Islam with Crusading wars vs Islam. It's difficult to generalise in a sentence what could easily fit into many volumes: but in general I would say that in Byzantium war (even strategically & tactically) was usually a matter of trying to attain certain practical ends. The Crusading wars on the other hand were wars almost of ideology. This shows the weakness of a doctrine of a 'just war'. The doctrine leads one to think that we can arrive at moral decisions through mental arithmetic when in fact it is what precedes the decision to act that is a spiritual, moral process.

You wrote: " would you agree with Alex that violence is in-of-itself a sin, an "evil", and should be confessed? For example, given my example above, would it necessarily follow that I had sinned in stopping such an attacker, even to the death of said attacker? If so, I believe we are back to a de facto pacifism."

Defending ones' family or country is not like grabbing a gun and in fit of passion shooting someone. There is a moral agreement between society and state that legal (ie morally justifiable) force will be delegated only to its trained agents- ie police, army. If it was just left in our hands to defend we would often succumb to passion. But the police & army are trained precisely so that not passion but rather policy is their goal. The better trained our forces then the better not only practically but also morally.

I once knew an Orthodox monastic who had been a US Marine in the worst battles of the Pacific during WWII. He was so sweet & gentle I once asked him how he could have fought in such a vicious battle as Iwo Jima. He said simply, "he was just doing what he had to do." On the other hand some who have killed in war do feel troubled by what they have done- in this case there is nothing wrong with someone bringing this to confession.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Charalambos Andrew Geo

09-11-2004, 01:57 PM

I found out when speaking to a monk on Stavrovouni in Cyprus that if one wants to be a priest then they have to fit a certain criteria, also Elder Paisios was in the war and because it was not for certain if he killed anyone or not he was not made a priest, but a Holy monk He is and if He has found favour with God may God enlighten us. If possible, it would be "IDEAL" if President Bush had an Orthodox Spiritual fr and when to a paraklisis and after getting anointed asked his spiritual Fr for advice on what to do" then whilst praying the leader of the Country would address the nation, maybe he did some of that. In other circumstances, i guess one has to pray in what ever way they can, be it look at an icon, into the sky or just making the sign of the cross with their tounge or something that they in faith or knowledgeable in lack of faith like the epillectics Father after the transfiguration says I believe help my unbelief, so by God's grace in our humility and patience we do what we can and also whilst praying about it, God willing a Father may be able to pray for his family and the attacker and like a brother will "knock some sense into the attacker" whether it be via prayer or a blessing or weeping to the mother of God for his state and our own weakness to do as God wants or maybe we could Glorify God and as Christ says "Today the Son of Man is Glorified" ok not everyone is a saint but in time may God grant it to all.

The point is if your unconditional love for God family and enemies leads you to lovingly protect or do something then it should be ok, let someone decide from their patience, Humilty and Love for God neighbour and enemies. Love is the deciding factor.

I don't mean "passion filled love" or purely emotional love, i mean Real love for God and your enemies and your friends and families.

I hope this is an orthodox comment, if not correct my mistakes and pray for it, pray for me and the World through His all Holy Mother and Saints the Ranks of heavenly hosts and Guardian Angels and Patron Saints,

In Christ
Charalambos

M. Rallis

09-11-2004, 03:40 PM

"If possible, it would be "IDEAL" if President Bush had an Orthodox Spiritual fr and when to a paraklisis and after getting anointed asked his spiritual Fr for advice on what to do" then whilst praying the leader of the Country would address the nation, maybe he did some of that. "

Although this is unlikely to happen, I do believe that as President Bush was shown on TV the night of the elections, watching the results on TV with his Father, Mother and family, that there was an Icon of the Theotokos clearly visible on a lamp table next to the couch.

Marie-Duquette

09-11-2004, 07:03 PM

Michael Rallis,

It seems to me that anyone could have an icon of the Theotokos or any other icon for that matter in his/her home; but, that doesn't make them "Orthodox Christians"

President Bush could have received an icon from a Metropolitan who visited him or at any other time. If the icon was placed there only as a "show" Lord Jesus Christ Have Mercy upon us, and upon the whole world!

What this has to do with the theme of "Sword" in this thread? I don't know, but all I know is that Jesus did say that anyone who takes up a sword will die by the sword. Not sure where this verse comes from in the Gospel. But, I do believe that it is a powerful one, pointing to the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as THE living sacrifice for the sin of the world.

"Peace" is the message of the Risen Christ! and not war or the sword. Why the sword is needed is for the prunning of our own personaly passions and sins with a spirit of true heart-felt repentence.

What is hidden will one day be revealed, in God's time, not ours.

marie_duquette

M. Rallis

09-11-2004, 08:00 PM

Dear Marie-duquette:

You are right; displaying a holy icon, that was probably a gift, does not make one an Orthodox christian. It's just that I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw on the TV, in the personal living quarters of a Protestant President at the White House, a Byzantine-style icon of the Theotokos. As an Orthoox christian, this image touched me.

You are also right that my comment is very tangential to the current thread, I was just making a side comment to Charalambos' post #73.

I wonder what effect the icon is having on the first family, even if it was only "placed for show"?

Marie-Duquette

09-11-2004, 11:08 PM

Michael Rallis,

thank you for actually responding to my post! As to your "wondering about the effect of the icon on the first family, even if it was only placed for show" ...

I don't know! Only God knows what effect this could have on the "rest of the world" looking "for the rest of the story"

My prayer "Holy Theotokos save us!" not by war but through the Sacrifice of your Son, the Lamb of God, our Lord Jesus Christ!

marie_duquette

Alex Haig

10-11-2004, 01:57 AM

I haven't posted in this thread for a while as I was waiting for the American election to pass, I thought perhaps I was getting a bit too political which was not my intention.

Father Raphael, in your post #319 above you say "There is a moral agreement between society and state that legal (ie morally justifiable) force will be delegated only to its trained agents." Is this necessarily true? Does legality equate with morality?

Secondly, I have been trying to argue all along in this thread (unfortunately perhaps not very clearly) that violence may be the lesser of two evils in any given case, but that does not change the fact it is still evil, steming from us (both individually and as a people) falling short of the example of love Christ and His Saints have given us.

With love in Christ

Alex

Andrew Williams

10-11-2004, 10:38 AM

--(quote) "Father Raphael, in your post #319 above you say "There is a moral agreement between society and state that legal (ie morally justifiable) force will be delegated only to its trained agents." Is this necessarily true? Does legality equate with morality? "

This is a very interesting question. Take the following hypothetical situation: there are two groups of people, similar in number, each of roughly uniform ethnicity, each group finding itself for whatever reason under some kind of violent attack from outside itself. One of these groups is a nation, the other is not. So when the groups fight back, one is waging legal and moral war in self defence, the other group is a group of terrorists. Is this right?

Daniel Jeandet

10-11-2004, 02:17 PM

It would depend on which group owns the most pervasive "news" media, and whether or not you listen to it.

--------------------------------------------------

War Is A Racket

By General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corp.

(Speech originally-delivered in 1933)
8-21-2

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns six percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem off for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

(Speech originally-delivered in 1933)

--------------------------------------------------

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-11-2004, 05:32 PM

Dear Alex,

You wrote,

"Father Raphael, in your post #319 above you say "There is a moral agreement between society and state that legal (ie morally justifiable) force will be delegated only to its trained agents." Is this necessarily true? Does legality equate with morality?"

By what I wrote I was trying to suggest that the issue of violence is dealt with through law or state means. For those states which share in the same basic Christian heritage, law has a moral component to it. This arose from the efforts of the first legislators after the conversion of a people; after conversion it is interesting that one of the first things to occur would be the writing or re-writing of the law code to reflect Christian morality. I would say that the Code of Justinian marks a major step in this Christianisation of law- certainly this Code had a major impact on the concept of law of Christian nations both east & west.

I am also trying to suggest that once law becomes Christianised it is much more than just a matter of "do this & don't do that." What happens essentially is that a code of behaviour is removed from the plane of the arbitrary, individual act. From tribal blood feuds we move to the concept of all acts taking place in the context of community. The Byzantines thought of those who did not follow law as 'barbaros' (barbarians) precisely because they understood that any world not governed by Christian law is a world of bloody chaos where individual passion reigns.

Law not only governs the "thou shalt not kill" of a society. It also governs instruments of the state- such as the army & police. In other words (to look thru Byzantine glasses ) for barbarians an army is just a bunch of marauding hooligans. But for a Christian nation they are governed by law & codes of conduct so that they are lawful instruments of the state.

This is what I meant by the moral agreement between society & state. This agreement means that I will not just take the law into my own hands (a contradiction in terms from the Byzantine perspective) I will precisely be a lawful member of the community and leave all means of compulsion in the hands of lawful authorities so that indeed this action is lawful and not lawless. What I am getting at is the crucial dividing line between what is governed (Christian) and what is arbitrary (barbarian).

Law does not mean that all legal actions are ideal or perfectly moral. In Byzantine & other Christian influenced law codes this was fully recognised. After all that is why the state had law while the Church had its own distinct Tradition. Law is not an ideal but rather the practical application of morality in the reality of the world we live in with all of its complexity. It will always depend on discernment & morality for its proper application. Without these it is just as possible for legality to be deeply immoral as for it to be a means of morally governing the community. If an army ceases being a lawful instrument of state it becomes a gang of hooligans.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M. Rallis

10-11-2004, 06:46 PM

Dear All:

How do we interpret the vision which Saint Constantine had of the Cross in the sky, prior to battle, in light of our current discussion?

Also, thank you Fr. Raphael for taking the time to discuss my question about heterodox baptism. I'm trying to do a little research to see if I can add anthing more to your comments.

Moses Anthony

11-11-2004, 01:15 AM

No one alive today can say with impunity that the vision of Constantine The Great was prelest. Our 20/20 hindsight tells us that God, in His plan for the Church, used this Byzantine Emperor for His glory. This is not totally unlike some Old Testament situations, where through violent means the people of God were protected. According to the historical records available to us, we can only say that the vision of the cross was from God.

When you make a study of Sacred Tradition, you will find that in the Scriptures neither Jesus or Peter, placed upon the Centurions they ministered to, the constriction of having to leave the Roman Legion. Did men die in the battle which gained Constantine the right of sole Emperor of the Realm, no doubt they did. Does that mean then that the vision was not from God, no!

Yes, as the holy Apostle wrote, "...love is the more excellent way"; however we can learn something from the Protestant hymn about martyrs: "...some through the power, some through the flood, some through the fire, but all through the blood." Not everyone comes to God through the same means, and definitely not every avenue God uses is always palatable to us. We do not know all that we think, and probably half of that which we claim!

the sinful and unworhty servant

Olga

11-11-2004, 03:54 AM

Re Fr Raphael's post no. 333: As an aside, the word "barbarian" originated in Greece in quite ancient times, and originally meant "foreigner", i.e. someone who was not Greek. It is derived from the harsh sounds "bar bar" of a foreign language, compared to their perception of the dulcet tones of Greek. It was many centuries later that the word acquired the uncouth, violent and uncivilised overtones we now recognise.

Christopher Encapera

12-11-2004, 05:04 AM

Alex,

You mentioned yesterday that:

"Secondly, I have been trying to argue all along in this thread (unfortunately perhaps not very clearly) that violence may be the lesser of two evils in any given case, but that does not change the fact it is still evil, steming from us (both individually and as a people) falling short of the example of love Christ and His Saints have given us. "

As I said upstream, this is exactly what I believe our Holy Tradition denies. You put it well (and clear) above. To put it bluntly, Holy Tradition, and of course our God, allow for violence to be used as a good, as well as an evil. There is nothing intrinsically evil in "violence", any more than there is nothing intrinsically evil in a sharp edged knife. Everyday in this fallen world a homicidal maniac kills a man with a knife. Every day, a surgeon saves a man's life with a knife. the "lesser of two evils" wants to place the "evil" in the knife itself. The "lesser of two evils" leads directly to a deep and profound pacifism, because a lesser evil is still an evil and should not be done. It turns "turn the other cheek" into a bloody sacrifice of my family, friends, and neighbors on an unholy alter named "peace". Pacifism has been rejected by the Church, and for that matter the vast majority of schismatics and heretics for a reason. This means that there can be a virtuous use of violence, that is in no way a "falling short of the example of love Christ and His Saints have given us." - on the contrary, can be the Lords Will that we defend our family and neighbors from an evil attack. Whether this or that particular instance of a nation going to war (e.g. USA and allies in Iraq) is "just" or "justifiable" assumes is of course a prudential and moral issue, but with out the possibility of a virtuous war, then we are back into deep and profound pacifism as God's will for us.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, there has been a tendency in SOME (a minority I believe) modern Orthodox intellectuals, Bishops, and seminary professionals seem to have bought into this idea of "lesser of two evils". Groups like the Orthodox Peace Fellowship have had too much influence I believe, or perhaps they are just a symptom of a species of "the philosophy of the age"

For a review of a book directly speaking to this idea of "lesser of two evils", written by an Orthodox priest, go here:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-09-040-f

Anastasia Theodoridis

12-11-2004, 05:55 AM

The "lesser of two evils," in Orthodoxy at least, does NOT automatically degenerate into absolute pacifism.

If I ever have to defend my family, I will. And if that means I have to shoot somebody, I will. Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that to have killed another is STILL EVIL. It was a lesser evil than allowing him to massacre my family, but sill evil.

Sometimes we *have* to do things but that doesn't make them "justifiable" as it would for Catholics or Protestants. It's never God's will; it's just a spot the devil manoeuvered us into because this fallen world is susceptible to his wiles. And who made it that way? All of us. And I myself have contributed more than my fair share to the miserable condition of this world. So no, I do what I have to do, but I don't walk out of it innocent. That's why we pray for forgiveness of "sins voluntary and involuntary".

That applies to warfare, too. Sometimes we have to go to war. An Orthodox soldier who kills on the battlefield in the course of duty, serving his country honorably, is still going to be kept from receiving Holy Communion for a long time, until his soul heals from that experience, and he is never eligible for priesthood after that.

Our Lord commanded us to love one another and our enemies, just as He loves us. It's hard to love a man while I'm killing him.

Anastasia

Anastasia Theodoridis

12-11-2004, 06:16 AM

> I wrote: " Sometimes we *have* to do things but that doesn't make > them "justifiable" as it would for Catholics or Protestants. It's > never God's will; it's just a spot the devil manoeuvered us into ..." >

And I'd like to add that if I were sufficiently holy, I might have more options than simply to let the guy kill my family or kill him to prevent that. For example, I might have about me such an aura of holiness and strength that the villain would be awed and when I rebuked him, he would fall on his knees and beg forgiveness. Or I might pray and the man would become blinded or otherwise disabled. Or who knows, what options I would have if I were a saint? But I'm in this situation because I am not a saint, and whose fault is that?

Anastasia

Fr Aaron Warwick

12-11-2004, 02:33 PM

Have you seen on TV or known anyone personally who has lost someone in war? There is nothing intrinsically good or holy about this. It may be necessary, perhaps, in a fallen world, but that does not make it good or right or holy.

Aaron

Moses Anthony

12-11-2004, 02:55 PM

A little perspective: What would happen to a Christian soldier in Iraq who refused to shoot to stop, or shoot to kill a terrorist in a firefight? My son, an Orthodox Christian, has been to Iraq, and will likely be sent to Afghanistan, if he were to exhibit such actions would likely be sent immediately to the brig for an extended stay.

There seems to be a concensus of thought among the members here, that to use violence in the protection of anyone, it means to kill them. That is not the case! A restraining hold is using violence, a show of force (military or otherwise) lays the groundwork for the thought that violent means may be used against the perpetrator of anti-social behavior.

Methinks this discussion will never end, quite like some children's songs.

Christopher Encapera

13-11-2004, 12:50 AM

Anastasia,

You say that:

”If I ever have to defend my family, I will. And if that means I have to shoot somebody, I will. Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that to have killed another is STILL EVIL. It was a lesser evil than allowing him to massacre my family, but sill evil.”

This is what Fr. Webster explicitly denies. I believe he is right, another words Holy Tradition denies that your part in the death of such an attacker is “still evil”. He uses the language of “lesser good”. You can read a review of this book at:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-09-040-f

What I believe this “lesser of two evils” reasoning leads to is what Fr. Webster calls the “specter of a lesser morality”. Simply put, what it says is that God sometimes puts us in an impossible situation, where we MUST choose evil. Of course, later we are judged for it! I believe Holy Tradition denies this, God always leaves us with a good choice. In other words, your defense of your family, even to the death of the attacker, is a virtuous (i.e. good) act. Now, the evil is of course the responsibility of the attacker, and whatever evil is to be found “situationaly” he would have to answer for. This evil however is not to be imputed to you. All this of course does not exclude other considerations (like did you really need to kill to adequately defend – was God’s will in fact martyrdom for you and your family, etc) but I think it is important not to exclude the possibility of a virtuous or “justifiable” act in this situation, because I do not believe Holy Tradition excludes this possibility. Again, this situation in-of-itself is not an “involuntary sin”.

Aaron,

I do know several people who have lost loved and dear ones in war, indeed in my own family. How does this pain infringe on whether their acts, or the war itself, was justifiable or virtuous (or whether the idea of “lesser evil” is in fact part of our Holy Tradition)?

James,

These sorts of questions do tend to bring in many tangent issues. I think however, one can speak directly and plainly to the theological issue of “lesser evil” and the possibility of a justifiable defense of family/neighbors/country.

Father Anthony

13-11-2004, 01:28 AM

Christopher Encapera writes that he disagrees with the concept of "lesser of evils" and prefers the term "lesser good" used by Fr. Alexander Webster.

I have known Fr. Alexander for many years, and respectfully must disagree with him if - as Christopher states - Fr. Alexander explicitly denies that *any* killing, even in defense of another is evil. I write, "if" Fr. Alexander takes that position, because I have not read his work cited.

However, Fr. Alexander has no shortage of western concepts in his writing. And this would, indeed, be a western concept, where sin is defined and categorized depending on whether or not and to what degree the "act, omission, or thought" is inherently sinful, the degree to which the person knows of the sinful nature, and the degree to which the person freely consents to doing so (the Latins even have - and probably still do - that knowledge and consent go so far as to make an inherently innocent act mortally sinful if the sinner *thinks* it is!).

In the Orthodox Church we know that sin is that which offends God. Whether the sinner knows it or not, consents or not, it's *still* a sin. Consider the number of times we read in the Old Testament of God punishing "the nations" for acts that they would never have thought sinful.

We pray in the prayers before Holy Communion for forgiveness of sins "known and unknown, of knowledge or of ignorance," for example. That's because we *do* sin by ignorance and even without knowing it. If you run a stop-sign, not having seen it is no excuse: you still get a ticket. That's a lot like this matter.

All killing is sinful. Period.

And, yes, sometimes we are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. But it is not *God* Who gives us that choice, but the others who act, using the free will that God gave to them (and to us). We are often victimized by another's use of free will to sin.

Fr. Anthony

Christopher Encapera

13-11-2004, 02:48 AM

Fr Anthony,

While I have the book that the article cites above, I confess I have not read it either (only skimmed). I have read Fr. Webster's essay (of which I believe this book is an outgrowth of) in last years St. Vladimir's quarterly on this subject. I do find his extensive historical citations of Eastern Fathers, prayers, hagiography etc. convincing - it does not seemed to me to be burdened by a "Western" (and by implication lesser or flawed) concepts, unless these very Eastern Tradition itself is infused with such a philosophy ;). Personally, I can not accept your absolutist statement of "All killing is sinful. Period." because, as I said above I believe it turns God into a monster. Interestingly, the argument that this is supported by our confessing our "unknown" a sins is contradicted by the very statement itself. If all killing is sinful, then I of course can not utter such a statement and prayer (and it be true) if it is unknown. Finally, I believe a better stop sign analogy would be getting a ticket for running a sign that is not there - that is simple fraud on the part of the authorities, or in this case the Authority Himself. Being blamed and judged for the only good choice is, well, monstrous.

I believe I have made clear that I of course do not believe most killing is not sinful- it most certainly is. What I do not believe is that in certain cases, we are to die (or allow our families to suffer) senseless and obvious evil acts, and then to confess that our virtuous actions are "sinful" or "evil". Such is the logic of "lesser of two evils".

Finally, let me quote a few lines from the above review that speaks to your assertion that there are fundamental differences between East and West concerning this issue:

"It strikes me as a singular sort of delusion to imagine that the Eastern Orthodox tradition is any more hospitable to pacifism than the Western Catholic tradition, given the utter absence of pacifist tenets from Orthodoxy’s teachings, liturgy, or history. And yet, apparently, it is a delusion shared by a not inconsiderable number of (Western) Eastern Christians at present. Of course, it is something of a cottage industry in the Orthodox Church—especially among converts—to discover and “market” ever newer ancient differences between Eastern and Western Christian theology, morality, devotion, spirituality, politics, cuisine, or whatever else one can think of."

I sense a bit of hyperbole from both sides here. Perhaps you could quote some Fathers, or other bit of Holy Tradition, that explicitly supports this idea of "lesser of two evils" and the related absolutism "All killing is evil"

Fr Aaron Warwick

13-11-2004, 05:17 AM

Christopher asks: "I do know several people who have lost loved and dear ones in war, indeed in my own family. How does this pain infringe on whether their acts, or the war itself, was justifiable or virtuous?"

Aaron: The pain experienced by the death of anyone, whether it be from war or natural causes, is a result of fallen mankind. The point being that war--and even death in general--is not something inherently good or holy, as you seem to imply that it could be.

Christoper asks Fr. Anthony: "Perhaps you could quote some Fathers, or other bit of Holy Tradition, that explicitly supports this idea of "lesser of two evils."

Aaron: Forgive me for answering a question not directly asked to me, but this is something that has already been addressed on this forum. Namely, the fact that a soldier who has killed in war is automatically banned from Holy Communion for an extended period of time (and, in addition, may never enter the clergy) speaks volumes. Why would the Holy Tradition of the Church ban someone from Holy Communion for an extended period of time when what they have done is virtuous and pleasing to God?

Aaron

Christopher Encapera

13-11-2004, 05:27 AM

Oops,

I apologize for the poor editing of the above post. I meant to say that we can not say "All killing is sinful" and then confess are ignorance (because we just claimed to know that ALL killing is sinful...). I also meant to say that we are not to prevent senselessly evil acts/killings and turn around and confess our virtuous acts as something "evil" and un-virtuous - meaning that we should not have done them! I think it was Chesterton who said that God may be above reason, but he never simply contradicts it. I see nothing in Holy Tradition that leads me to believe Chesterton was wrong on this point.

Also, as I understand it, our "involuntary sins" arise out of our sinful passions - they are really only involuntary in the sense that our irresponsibility, faithlessness, etc up till that point has produced in us a certain inescapable habit or compulsion. It does not refer to involuntary in the sense that I involuntarily require oxygen. One is ultimately under my will, the other (needing oxygen) is not and it is indeed how I was wonderfully made. Fr. Anthony's reasoning seems to want to make it my responsibility (though I am absolutely powerless to do anything about it) that I breath. Not only that, God will hold me account! No doubt, along with any evil defense of the innocent I might commit (not to mention those sinful sentiments of affection I have for my family and little puppies) God will see His way to forgiving me my involuntary yet sinful (lesser, of course) act of breathing. ;) http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Also, I think it needs to be remembered that every poster on this list enjoys the relative peace of his society because there are those who do not believe in the logic of "lesser of two evils". Our police and military have jobs that by definition carry the threat and actual use of the sword, which is of course quite violent. In the "lesser of two evils" thinking, theirs is an inherently (by definition) evil job. The absurdities keep piling up on when one starts to think through the true consequences of such thinking. I recall a number of years ago a deranged child of God entered a McDonalds, killed several people, and was only prevented from killing more by the willingness of a police officer to shoot that man. Did the police officer commit a sin, an evil? Would our Christian ancestors of the last 2000 years really called that action an evil, or would they have praised it as a virtuous act?

Christopher Encapera

13-11-2004, 05:39 AM

Aaron,

If I remember correctly, Fr. Webster's notes that historically St. Basils recommendation (or canon - I believe it is a canon) that a solider be "automatically banned" from communion was not, repeat, not followed . I think that speaks volumes. I do not have Fr. Webster's essay on hand - I will try to locate it tomorrow. This begs the question, did the Church find this judgment to be in error?

Anastasia Theodoridis

13-11-2004, 06:36 AM

No, killing is never virtuous.

Neither are we virtuous; that seems to be the part of your logic that is conspicuously missing.

If we were virtuous, like Moses, the sea would open for us to cross and escape our enemies. If we were virtuous, like Elijah, we could call down fire from heaven to confound our enemies. If we were virtuous, like Jesus, we could pray and God would send legions of angels to protect us.

We aren't virtuous. That's why sometimes the devil (not God!) puts us in the position of having to do violence: because. due to our sinfulness, we can't part the seas or call down fire or summon angels to our assistance or do any other such godly thing as an alternative to killing. And that is why God is justified when He judges us accordingly.

King David did all kinds of brilliant military feats, for which he is much admired. God was on his side and made him victorious. Yet when King David wanted to build a temple for God, what did God say? NO, because you are a man with blood on your hands.

Anastasia

>

M.C. Steenberg

13-11-2004, 09:04 AM

That God always provides humanity with a 'good choice' is untenable in face of the reality of sin. Humans are free and sinful -- free to set up contexts of sin with regard to which there is no holy way out simply because one or another party in the dispute may believe in God. Attempts to justify, or worse make virtuous, the descent into sin that these contexts will at times require, are built off a failure to appreciate the reality of human freedom, and somehow to to make palatable the sickness of our condition of freedom's misuse.

It seems to me that the only time we can ever begin to make ground for a Christian view on when war, or killing, is ethically the best thing to do in a given situation, is when we begin to acknowledge that it is always, always morally evil and sinful. Never, in any instance, is there an exception to this. Yet ours is a world in which the choices we are compelled to make are not always between a right and a wrong, a good and a bad.

I have read the book in question in the above posts. I'll leave comments on it to someone else. It seemed to me entirely incompatible with real Christianity.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-11-2004, 07:30 PM

Matthew S. wrote above, "It seems to me that the only time we can ever begin to make ground for a Christian view on when war, or killing, is ethically the best thing to do in a given situation, is when we begin to acknowledge that it is always, always morally evil and sinful. Never, in any instance, is there an exception to this. Yet ours is a world in which the choices we are compelled to make are not always between a right and a wrong, a good and a bad."

I am not sure whether we begin or end at this point of realisation about killing in war. But it is crucial for us to understand that the Church does condemn all such killing. I certainly do not agree with the efforts of Fr Alexander Webster to say that killing in war is virtuous. He downplays the seriousness of the canons concerning a soldier who kills in combat & of priests who must not bear arms- even to hunt or harm any living creature. So I entirely agree with Matthew that we must be clear about the morality of killing in war.

The confusion arises I think because of the confusion between war & killing in war. While killing is condemned the effort to protect country & the self-sacrifice of the soldier to achieve this is commended and prayed for by the Church. Perhaps that is why the experience of the soldier is so often tragic in the highest sense. The result of freedom for or even survival of one's country is a noble end. But the means through killing leave scars on the soldier both for friend & foe who lost their lives. Perhaps the only healing for this is our own compassion & prayers for those who fought. The soldier must accept this burden of moral ambiguity & of the fact that his/her life will be thenceforth be marked by a measure of tragedy; in a way it an aspect of what the so often referred to 'duty of a soldier' means. This I think is one of the main weaknesses in Fr Alexander's claim that war can be virtuous. Through this claim of virtuousness it ignores the scars that are in the soldier's heart. By implication it would counsel that any pain from these scars is imagined on the soldier's part- perhaps a 'guilt complex'. But the soldier even in victory also needs healing.

The nation after war also needs healing. This process of healing is summed up in the various days of remembrance that many of our countries commemorated a few days ago. These days remember by finding the point in between jingoistic triumphalism and pacifist blaming war for all of our problems. In a real sense we heal as a people through remembering in the correct way. Note that for many nations in the past few years a spontaneous desire to meet the former enemy has arisen. Now during "Remembrance Day" at Normandy Beach for example we often see former Allied & German soldiers walking side by side. This is deeply healing to both soldiers & nations. But if the killing of war is apparently virtuous then such acts are just sentimental exercises of little consequence. All we are left with at the end of the day are victors & vanquished. Hardly a good prospect considering how exactly this scenario helped lead to another terrible war (WWII) in the first place.

I went through the Life of St Sergei of Radonezh for an example of the Church's attitude towards war. It is too long for this post so I will post it later today God-willing.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Christopher Encapera

13-11-2004, 07:52 PM

Anastasia,

Good point about King David! Still, your view of virtue seems an sinful man's possibility of attaining it seems too be dark. I can see no real difference between yours and a "total depravity" view of the human condition. God is justified when he judges us for or sin no doubt, but if there is no virtue in the ordinary sinners like me, well, then Calvin must have been from the East!

M.C. Steenberg,

First, let me thank you for the forum! I would say that like Anastasia, your "context of sin" recalls to my mind a sort of "total depravity" (not sure how else to read "the descent into sin that these contexts will at time require"). It seems to want to exclude a priori the possibility of virtue by a sinner. I think virtue occurs everyday, in all sorts of contexts, with the full Grace of God behind it. Even given the above sentence (sin being at time a necessary requirement, unavoidable, and or avoidance of it quite hopeless) one can still imagine, and look for, a time where a just defense (of innocent for example) is sin is not required.

As to the "ethically best thing to do" I am sure we would both agree that it would be false to take an assumption (like "always, always morally evil and sinful") just for it's desired effect on the ethical actor - sort of like a psychological trick of the mind. The fathers call us to be absolutely truthful with our selves about our own sin - but I see no where they want us to assent to a falsehood for some desired end. And of course, whether "lesser of two evils" is true is what we are talking about (it may very well be - obviously I am not convinced).

By the way, both your and Anastasia thoughts are uncannily close to the "ethical realism" that both Fr. Webster and Hart (reviewer of above book) warn us about. Such a view comes from us through Niebuhr. To quote Fr. Webster (St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly V47 #1):

"[Niebuhr]...conceded that the perfect morality modeled by Jesus Christ is not practical in human society and must be moderated by the a pragmatic and realistic ethic of responsibility that requires a choice of lesser of evils on behalf of justice for the community. The fatal flaw of this approach...is the self-evident moral incongruity of Niebuhr's logic: Jesus' ethic of love impels us to do vicious things....Neibuhrian and other early twentieth century varieties of Christian or secular ethical realism may be unsurpassed in their impact on the revisionist Orthodox proponents of the lesser morality..."

As for "real Christianity", no doubt all of us here are honestly (honesty is a virtue - did we just commit one? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif) searching for and receiving (by God's Great and Rich Mercy) "real Christianity". Sometimes we obviously reject it. Here is a pragmatic and real example of the darkness of the "lesser of two evils" approach: Read the post titled "OPINION: From the Holy Land" by Dr Maria Khoury who lives and struggles for God's peace in the Holy Land:

http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/

She also sees nothing but darkness and hopelessness, "the lesser of all evil" as she puts it ends up being Yasser Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism. Woe unto us "real Christians" when we reason our way into terrorism...

Owen Jones

13-11-2004, 08:16 PM

Orthodoxy, as far as I can see, does not have a social/political theory. This developed in the Latin Church, beginning with Augustine, (later to be expanded by Aquinas) who had to account for the destruction of the Christian Roman Empire in the West. This destruction did not conform to the prevailing view of Providence at the time and so he developed certain distinctions between the sacred and the secular realms that prevailed until the 18th Century critique of the traditional religious view of history.

In the East, there was no commensurate development of a social/political theory after the fall of the Empire, perhaps because it happend 1,000 years after the fall of the Western roman Christian Empire, other than the Russian theory that they constituted the Third Rome. With the fall of the Russian Christian Empire, no political theory has replaced it. Prior to that, Imperial Christianity was the norm, and violence to maintain the integrity of the realm was always seen as justified. But in a secular state, what is the Christian theory of violence to protect the realm? Orthodoxy, so far as I know, has not dealt with this or any other political/social relationship since the fall of Christian Empire.

These discussions are all abstract without a concrete theory of power. Christianity is about power. Power abhors a vaccum. If it wanes in one quarter, it waxes in another. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution had a theory, based on English liberalism, that power should be balanced through constitutional limitations, so that no one faction could obtain too much power. This theory of constitutional government is an evolution of the balance of power theory designed by Metternich to avoid major European conflicts. The theory being that no one European state should be permitted to have supreme power, since that was considered to be destablising. Ironically, the balance of power formulation arguable was a contributing factor to World War I, when the French, concerned that the balance of power in Europe was being upset by the German desire to have an empire on a par with Britain, was a threat, so they forced Russia into mobilizing its military forces, thus forcing Germany into attacking France before they had to face a two front war.

In the Augustinian theory, the spiritual power of the Church and the secular power of the state ought to be kept in balance, with one not outweiging the next. Aquinas developed a fairly extensive theory of the relations between church and state based in some part on the Aristotelian theory of balance and prudentia.

The traditional Orthodox view seems to be one of either controlling the state, a la Christian Empire, or being at war with the state, or threatened by the state, or repudiation of the secular state.

Christopher Encapera

13-11-2004, 08:17 PM

Fr. Vereshack,

Perhaps the central problem here is the use of the words "evil" and "virtue". You write:

"This I think is one of the main weaknesses in Fr Alexander's claim that war can be virtuous. Through this claim of virtuousness it ignores the scars that are in the soldier's heart. By implication..."

When focused in on the soldier this is true. When we pull back however, and see the sacrifice, the virtue, and the real love that takes place in the very act of the defense of the innocent - or the averting of senseless and meaningless death in the case of the deranged Child of God's death at the McDonalds - to call this an evil, even with the qualifier of "lesser" seems to me to be downright blasphemous. No one here seems to want to talk about the "scars" left on the innocent, or even the not so innocent, if we decided not to do this "lesser evil" and pacifistically submitted ourselves to the "greater evil"

Perhaps the Cross can be a way out of this dilemma. Do we talk about the Cross of Christ being a "great evil", a "lesser evil", or do we talk about it in triumphalist terms. What do you think?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-11-2004, 10:21 PM

Dear Christopher,

I am really not too sure about the terms, 'lesser' or 'greater evil' in the context of the current discussion. Mainly I have been thinking about whether killing in war is considered by the Church to be sinful or not. And the evidence does clearly point in this direction. But the confusion comes because the Church clearly also does pray for the army & those going to war.

To illustrate let's follow the example you give. Someone in a public place draws a gun and begins shooting; the police shoot the man with the gun. The police are there to protect the community & even have the responsability to use lethal force if this is necessary. But the policeman who shoots & kills often feels a deep sorrow even for the shooter.

This is because while it is moral to protect the community it is not so to kill. Yet this is his duty. Note however that if we are not talking in abstractions; the policeman like the soldier is trained in many other possible means of resolution besides killing the offender. This is not only a technical aspect of his/her job; it also points to the moral tone of it that he would rather (indeed he is trained to) use less lethal force to deal with the violence of the dangerous person. As you know a policeman/ soldier has a very high threshold to pass before he is permitted to use lethal force.

As you can see I am not talking about a 'lesser evil' as if lethal force justified by duty is of no worth to the community. Of course we must protect the innocent. But none of this escapes the fact that we may still have a dead person and the one who killed him. This reflects the brokeness & sin of this world-not the triumph of virtue.

In ending this post I will repeat what I just sent to someone who asked me about this question via private email. Actually it was inspired by something Matthew wrote above if I understood him properly. "We pray for both Church & country-we live in both worlds, we try to bring the Light of Christ into the brokeness of this present world. As long as this is so- and it will be so until Christ heals everything at the Second Coming- we will necessarily face the confusion of brokeness & death in every choice we make even though the clarity of Christ's light may be illuminating our responses."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Anastasia Theodoridis

13-11-2004, 11:36 PM

You're right, Chrisopher; I overstated the case. We are NOT totally depraved.

Still, the point is, neither are we so virtuous that we could command the seas to depart, or close up again over our enemies. Neither are we so virtuous that if cast into a fiery furnace, we would feel the hot flames as refreshing breezes. Neither are we so holy that if cast into a lions' den, the beasts would lie tamely at our feet, leaving us unharmed.

We aren't holy enough to do any of those things, which is why sometimes, in defense of home and country, we have no choice left but to resort to killing. It's the "lesser" evil because it's rightly motivated. It's still evil because (A) it still transgresses the commandment, which no amount of human rationalizing can make go away, and (B) it is a symptom of our unspiritual condition, manifesting clearly our inability to do something better, our *self-imposed* inability to to better. There's where the fault lies: that we haven't become more spiritual people, and so are unable to fulfil our duty to home and country in godly ways.

No, Jesus' ethic doesn't impel us to do vicious things. It's our own lack of virtue that corners us into it.

Anastasia

Owen Jones

14-11-2004, 12:12 AM

The first Christian martyr of Britain told a lie (a sin) about his identity to save the life of a Christian that the Romans were after to crucify.

I see nothing in Scripture that says that all taking of life per se is a sin. An eye for an eye still stands. My understanding of the commandment is that thou shalt do no murder. The Gospel does not promise a peaceful world. Anything but. If anything, it promises more violence. The Church, in its wisdom, can choose not to participate in state activities, or such as legally sanctioned killings, or impose certain disciplines on its members, but the Church does not have the right to outright revolt against the state or flout laws which the Church chooses to flout, except in the most extreme circumstances.

The Church has a divine duty to respect the secular governing authorities and the mandates and responsibilities imposed upon them. It is a gnostic heresy to claim that a Christian is so pure that he stands outside of or above the law.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-11-2004, 12:25 AM

The following is from the Life of St. Sergei of Radonezh. I think it is a good example of how the Church sees war.

"A rumour spread that Prince Mamai was raising a large army as a punishment for our sins & that with all his heathen Tatar hordes he would invade Russian soil. Very great fear prevailed among the people at this report. The powerful & reigning prince, who held the sceptre of all Russia, great Dmitri, having a great faith in the saint, came to ask him if he counselled him to go against the heathen. The saint, bestowing on him his blessing, and strengthened by prayer, said to him, It behooveth you, Lord [Dmitri] to have a care for the lives of the flock committed to you by God. Go forth against the heathen; and upheld by the strong arm of God, conquer; and retuirn to your country sound in health, & glorify God with loud praise."

The account then states how when Prince Dmitri & his men saw the multitude of the enemy they were filled with fear. Just at this point, miraculously, a messenger from St Sergei arrived saying, "Be in no doubt, Lord Dmitri, go forward with faith & confront the enemy's ferocity; and fear not, for God will be on your side." Then the battle begins and "in that same hour the saint [Sergei] was engaged with his brethren before God in prayer for victory over the pagans."

In this manner occurred the great victory of the Russians over the Tatar host at Kulikovo Pole. And through this victory began to lift the Tatar yoke from Russia and the assurance that she would be a Christian country.

Certainly the above must be fit into all of our hesitations about killing in war. How to state the whole thing- what the Church blesses and what it says is sinful?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Christopher Encapera

14-11-2004, 02:55 AM

Anastasia,

As Owen implies, another (and fundamentally different view) is that we are not compelled to do evil (even if a lesser one) because of our lack of spiritual perfection or any other reason. Could it ever be God's will (and thus a virtue) that we justly defend our families with what powers we have? You object to a (if not just then an understandable one) defense being called a virtue - I object to a just defense being called an evil because so many virtues where so clearly involved (e.g. courage, prudence, meekness, Love). These virtues are existent ones beyond "motivations", at least to the extent that good exists in this fallen world. Perhaps we are at an impasse. I can not see my way to calling what that police officer did at that McDonalds an "evil" in any way. We are rightly sorrowful over an child of God's meeting his end in the way he did, and we call his assent to the mystery of evil what it is (simple evil), but to call the police officers actions evil - even thought he is commanded by God(Romans 13). St. Paul seem to implies no judgment on those who use the sword (for God's purpose) in Romans 13 for example.

Fr. Raphael you ask:

"Certainly the above must be fit into all of our hesitations about killing in war. How to state the whole thing- what the Church blesses and what it says is sinful? "

Why not "just" or "justifiable" defense??!! Why do we seem so afraid of this language? It holds none of the logical and moral incongruities of the "lesser evil" position. To reject it merely because it smacks of "western error" seems petty to me. If there is an Augustinian or Thomistic taint, what a wonderful opportunity for Orthodoxy to 'clean it up'. I sense a tendency to over-protect the very real fact of the fallenness of this world and our actions. Can we not call something "just" without falling into the delusion of triumphalism? Can we not recognize a virtue as a virtue, without accusing ourselves that we have somehow failed to recognize that we are not quite yet a glorious and New Creation? I am beginning to wonder whether some of us have shortened and twisted "Lord Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner" to a bare fact: "Lord Jesus...I am a sinner" with the implication that we have no hope.+

Alex Haig

14-11-2004, 02:55 AM

It has been mentioned several times in this thread the story of the Prophet Daniel in the lions den, that he was holy and was spared death: remember also what happened to St Ignatius of Antioch (to name one); he was thrown to the lions and given a Martyr's Crown. There are a variety of ways God has given us to glorify Him: we must pray that when the time comes we are able to walk in the steps which have been set before us.

With love in Christ

Alex

Anastasia Theodoridis

14-11-2004, 03:55 AM

Remember Uzzah? When the oxen carrying the Ark of the Covenant were stumbling, this poor man, from reverence and to keep the Ark from falling, reached out his hand to steady it. Virtuous motives, but he had transgressed the clear commandment of the Lord not to touch the Ark and he was struck dead on the spot.

Yes, we are at an impasse, so I will cease and desist now, and just leave you with this parting thought. Killing is always transgression, however good the motives, and even when you *must* do it because not to would be an even greater sin. And if you ever have to do it -- God forbid! -- you'll find out why it is still a great evil.

Anastasia

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-12-2004, 04:48 PM

From the Life of St Merkuri of Smolensk:

He was a soldier from Byzantium, one of the defenders of Smolensk when it was besieged by the Tatars in 1238. One day the Mother of God appeared to Mercurius and told him that the Tatars were preparing a surprise attack — and, further, that he must take up arms and attack the enemy singlehandedly. Placing all his trust in God, the lone soldier threw himself against the Tatar host crying 'Most Holy Mother of God, help me!' He was quickly surrounded and cut down, and it appeared that his action had been as foolhardy as it had seemed, when a woman at the head of a glorious host, all of them surrounded by light, appeared and threw back the Tatar army. The next morning the people of Smolensk found the ground covered with the bodies of their enemies. They buried Mercurius in the Cathedral, where he has been venerated as a Martyr ever since.

From this we see how the Most Pure Mother of God warns Merkuri of the attack of the Tatars. She blesses the taking up of arms & even making a 'pre-emptive attack'. The purpose here is purely defensive. It is not motivated by hate of others or a martial love of war.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

W. Lindsay Wheeler

08-12-2004, 07:10 PM

I see a couple of references to the Old Testament but there is a lot more evidence from the Old Testament and New.

In the New Testament, Rev. 12.7 Now war arose in Heaven. Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought.

Doesn't sound like war is wrong or evil. There was war in heaven. Actually it is a good thing. Sometimes Evil is done away with only through the force of arms.

In the Masoretic Text it has, the Lord God is a man of War at Exodus 15.3.

In the Septuagint Jer. 20.11 The Lord is as a man of war.

Septuagint II Kings, 22.35, He teaches my hands to war.

At Judges 14.4, One can see that the Lord caused a war to happen. "And his father and mother knew not that it was of the Lord, that he sought to be revenged on the Philistines." See, the Hebrew Law was only marriage within the tribe. Sampson's father tried to persuade him not to marry a philistine girl but it "was of the Lord, that he sought" the philistine girl. Sampson went on to destroy the philistine people.