Orthodox view on war [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Leandros

07-07-2005, 12:37 AM

Dear friends,

It's the WAR issue - again !

And we are called to "preach" on it.

Well, no sir. No ORTHODOX answer is to be given.

There is no ORTHODOX answer on the issue of war.

First “war” in human history: Cain killed Abel (Genesis 4:1-17) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:1-17;&version=9;).

After the killing of Abel, God asked Cain: “Where is Abel your brother?”

And Abel replied: “I know not. Am I my brother's guardian?”

Well, for pacifists and warlords and soldiers there is only one Orthodox question: “Are you your brother’s guardian?”

REMEMBER: No answer is to be given to “the question of war” because the question asks for guidance in a subject that excludes “others”. The “question of war” is about “us” and the “war”: ”view of war”/”OUR participation in war”, while it should be about our personal relation with others: “are we our brother’s guardians?”

Matthew 12:30-45
"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here."

I understand that brother Andrey Vershinin means well but his question is just as pointless as if he was asking about “the teachings of Fathers about orthodox mathematics”. There is no use of “orthodox” in mathematics and likewise there is no use of “orthodox” in war.

Brother Andrey Vershinin and friends, what is the point of marking abstract concepts with “theological” values?

We live our lives with REAL people, some of them are: our parents, brothers, strangers, countryman, aliens living in foreign countries. The ORTHODOX teaching is that we are their “guardians”, we have to live their lives and to literally die for them sacrificing ourselves (not kill them for our benefit, or for the benefit of an ideal) and as long as we do not realize this and we keep asking "false" questions Orthodox Church will keep not giving an answer.

Brother Andrey Vershinin, I apologize for the characterizations of your question. Please take them as my (uninvited) personal interference into your life. I may have upset you, but you have already upset my life (you are 18 years old and you ask about theology of war !) and there is a kind of mutuality here.

Brother Andrey Vershinin,let me tell a personal story. During the First World War, and during the Second World War several members of my family died, others in battle and others as refugees of war. I remember my grandmother praying for the specific soldiers that had entered in her house by force and then they used their weapons aiming at her head and at her family (in 1914). Then, she had to become refugee of war. Her family was forced to abandon family property and to make a trip of 2.000 Km towards a war free-zone. In the journey her brother died from refugee’s greatest fear: influenza!

Since then, she thought that the souls of the specific soldiers were in need for her prayers until the day she died. She carried the burden of their actions as a part of her personal load of way of being Orthodox. My grandmother was not a saint woman. She was just a common Orthodox woman, which believed that she was the “guardian” of her “brothers” even when her “brothers” were aiming at her with guns.

I am sure that, when she died, God asked her: “where are your brothers(soldiers) that wanted to kill you and your family?” Also, I am sure she replied: “they are in my prayers, as I watch over them”.

War is on earth and it will stay until the second coming of Christ. Let us, members of Orthodox Church, by not being part of the war-problem to be part of its solution.

May God bless us, all.

(Message edited by lpap on 07 July, 2005)

(Message edited by lpap on 07 July, 2005)

Daniel Jeandet

07-07-2005, 12:46 AM

It is worth watching the new star wars film "revenge of the sith". Its a really good story about a false war, where both sides are being manipulated for a hidden purpose. The supreme chancellor Palpatine gains control of the senate, and eventually the whole republic, by creating a war between "sepratists" and the newly cloned army of the republic. The Jedi Knights become the generals of the republic army, and fight against the separatists, without realising that the whole situation has been manufactured by the supreme chancellor.

At the beginning of the movie, there is some text to explain the gap between episode two and episode three. It informs us that the "clone wars" are raging across the galaxy, with heroes on both sides. Even though we know the war is a sham and the jedis have been decieved into fighting fake terrorists and defending the chancellor, who is about to destroy them and turn the republic into the empire, there are still heroes on both sides.

I think this is what is going on in our world right now. Fake wars and threats created by power-hungry men who manipulate both sides and foster chaos and fear in order to create the need for "solutions".

This does not make any of the warriors on either side any more or less heroic, it just means that our best and bravest warriors will be wasted and ruined by the time we face the real fight.

I pray that all the soldiers fight not just for thier countries and brothers, but also for thier minds, and the freedom of thier conscience, so we can all join to resist our true enemies, and stop throwing our lives away for the sake of our "leaders" promises of liberty and threats of danger that they use to create wars and tyranny.

Byron Jack Gaist

07-07-2005, 07:14 AM

...so which is it to be, peace or war?

What I gather from the above statement, complex as it admittedly is, is that Christian individuals should aim for peace, but war is a last-option reality for worldly governments and authorities, and some sort of "necessary vice" (?!) when it comes to defending the faith.

In the example of St Cyril's answer to the Muslim scholars, the saint calls on laying down one's life for ones friends, and for ones neighbours - which is it? The Muslim scholars are also neighbours, but are they, or others hostile to Christianity, friends? This seems to me an important distiction, bearing in mind the other scriptural injunction that to merely love those who love us back is no great shakes.

Lastly, just what is Augustine's "just-war" theory doing in there, is the text saying the Russian Church should also adhere to it?

A difficult topic, and for me one which raises questions of ultimate significance.

In Christ
Byron

Leandros

07-07-2005, 12:34 PM

In ancient Greece, a Spartan noble asked the Oracle of Delphi (http://www.nyloo.com/html/ent/997/ent.22997.1.asp): "should I go to war or not?"

The Oracle gave this answer:

“You will go, you will return not in the war shall you die.”

Well, notice that the meaning of the prophecy changes depending on whether you put a comma after "return" or after "not":

1)“You will go, you will return, not in the war shall you die.” - thus you will live.

2)“You will go, you will return not, in the war shall you die.” - thus you will die

When you ask the “false” question, wait for the answer that has no meaning.

"Should I participate in war or not?" is a "false" question.

By the way, Delphi Oracle’s priestess, Pythia, confessed that in age of Christendom “oracle giving” has ceased by the Power of Christianity:

"Constantine's successor, Emperor Julian, fascinated by Greece's classical civilization, sought to reinstate the ancient Greek spirit, culture, and Gods to an empire that was fast becoming entirely Christian. As part of his quixotic quest he sought Delphi's advice on his enterprise.

Pythia famously replied:

'Tell the King that the singing flute has fallen down; that Apollo's home is no more, nor is the Oracle or the speaking source. And the speaking water has been silenced.'"

Leandros

07-07-2005, 11:36 PM

St Athanasius in his work On the Incarnation of the Word (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-16.htm#P1830_678055) says:

"52. Wars, &C., Roused by Demons, Lulled by Christianity.

Who then is He that has done this, or who is He that has united in peace men that hated one another, save the beloved Son of the Father, the common Saviour of all, even Jesus Christ, Who by His own love underwent all things for our salvation? For even from of old it was prophesied of the peace He was to usher in, where the Scripture says (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa%202:4;&version=9;): “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their pikes into sickles, and nation shall not take the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” And this is at least not incredible, inasmuch as even now those barbarians who have an innate savagery of manners, while they still sacrifice to the idols of their country, are mad against one another, and cannot endure to be a single hour without weapons: but when they hear the teaching of Christ, straightway instead of fighting they turn to husbandry, and instead of arming their hands with weapons they raise them in prayer, and in a word, in place of fighting among themselves, henceforth they arm against the devil and against evil spirits, subduing these by self-restraint and virtue of soul. Now this is at once a proof of the divinity of the Saviour, since what men could not learn among idols they have learned from Him;and no small exposure of the weakness and nothingness of demons and idols. For demons, knowing their own weakness, for this reason formerly set men to make war against one another, lest, if they ceased from mutual strife, they should turn to battle against demons.

Why, they who become disciples of Christ, instead of warring with each other, stand arrayed against demons by their habits and their virtuous actions: and they rout them, and mock at their captain the devil; so that in youth they are self-restrained, in temptations endure, in labours persevere, when insulted are patient, when robbed make light of it: and, wonderful as it is, they despise even death and become martyrs of Christ."

Then, how can it be a Christian "theology of war" ?

Kevin Teo

03-08-2005, 05:58 PM

I have been lurking quietly in a corner, maybe partially because I do not feel fully equipped with the full knowledge to say anything substantial. But that said, I would believe that the idea of a "just war" seems hardly applicable in the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ who has himself warned that those who live by the sword will perish by it as well (Matthew 26:52). Although it is true that in the Old Testament there were such examples of "just war" waged by Israelites on the pagans, this cannot be applied in the same breath as the refusal to bear arms by Jesus and to belong to the kingdom of this world(remember, some of His followers and those among the Jews sought to "crown" him as king but he escaped and refused this).

The true battle, if I must say, is actually more an ascetical one. Every day, we are fighting this battle in the things we do and speak, and that is in itself a battle for God's kingdom. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places"(Ephesians 6:12)

Perhaps, in all my ignorance and watching so much of all the news of anti-terror actions undertaken by national security guards in London and other parts of Europe, hopefully and prayerfully, we are all fighting the right war with the right mind, not just a war on any living persons who claim to be terrorists, but people who do not stand on the side of God's kingdom and who oppose the grace of Christ.

Vasilis Kirikos

03-08-2005, 08:36 PM

> "I think we can agree that attacking another country "pre-emptively" because we think it is going to hurt us if we don't is not a good thing to do. Where we will no doubt continue to disagree, is whether or not that actually applies in this case." I truly believe that what has been said here strikes to the heart of the issue. I have a friend who was put into prison in a communist country NOT FOR SOMETING THAT HE HAD DONE..BUT BECASUE HE MAY DO SOMETHING! I have heard the philosophical argument (Lock I think) that maintains that a preemptive strike is a good thing. But I think that it is NEVER good thing. Like most wars, we are now fight an unjust war. It is too bad that we have love ones who are stationed in Iraq. But just because they are there with the best of intentions does not make the war just. WRONG IS WRONG. John Lock's view of war is a far cry form the view of Emanuel Kant who developed the Categorical Imperative; that our actions should be tested in a view IF MY ACT WERE MADE UNIVERSAL LAW would it be a just act? And in the case of the present or any war the answer has got to be a resounding NO! And NO! again and again. What is war? War is when someone tells you to go and kill fellow human beings ON THEIR SAY! We are told to believe people like George Bush or Bill Clinton that it is OK to kill on their say! One is a known failure in any of the businesses he ever attempted in life; a known addict to alcohol and drugs; and the other a man whose moral judgments are in high question; likely a sex addict. TWO ADDICTS! And we are to believe them when they tell us to go out and kill? HOW STUPID CAN ANYONE BE??? Society puts people in prison and to death for killing others on anyone's say!! HOW WILL GOD JUDGE US? This nation has never, nor in my view has any nation ever fought a just war. All wars are initially fought for one reason ..GREED/ECONOMIC GAIN. Viet Nam came up on this thread...That was a war (and it really was a war) fought for greed AND NOTHING BUT GREED! The domino theory of a communist world domination be damned..Thatg was and still is a total lie...The domino theory was just another ruse; just as slavery was a ruse used to fight the US Civil War...what a total load of bologna . Regarding Viet Nam... that war was started (actually continued) despite the fact that the Vietnamese people had sacrificed themselves during WW II to rescue American and British pilots who had been shot down by the Japanese. But even after all of that; after all that the Vietnamese people had done for them, the British, the good friends of the Vietnamese , the wonderful, trustworthy British rearmed their former enemy, the Japanese. Why? The British did not want to see colonial rule end in Indochina because they, the British had their own fingers in that very profitable pie; they had been fleecing the Burmese for years...So they rearmed the Japanese to keep the Vietnamese from reclaiming their nation and give the French time to come back and reclaim their old colonial rule. Sweet....But very bitter for the Vietnamese who had been promised a chance to vote on a referendum to rejoin their nation as one....But of course that vote was denied because the British knew full well. Because of the fear of the domino theory of communist world domination? OR WAS IT MORE DUE TO THE GREED AND COVETOUSNESS OF THE BRITISH AND FRENCE? Just remember this; FDR wanted, early on to end colonial rule of Indochina...but FDR was met with objections from the British...THIS WAS BEFORE ANY REAL OR DREAMED UP THREAT OF COMMUNIST WORLD DOMINATION. WAR IS EVIL! WAR IS SATANIC! WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WILL OF JESUS CHRIST! If you ever want to find the cause of this or that war, all you have to do is follow the MONEY TRAIL and you will find the reason. Vasilis (Viet Nam era veteran US Army)

Owen Jones

03-08-2005, 08:53 PM

No war pleases God. But to say that the Church can tell a country not to fight in its own defense is immoral and crazy. Regarding pre-emption, a blanket condemnation of all pre-emptive war is irrational. Had we resisted Hitler early, think of the catastrophe that would have been avoided.

So we go to Iraq. Bush said it very clearly and simply. We cannot afford to wait until Saddam has nuclear capability to transfer to terrorists. By then it will be too late. What are we expected to do? Wait until New York is incinerated? The response then would be total annihiliation of tens of millions of Arabs in retaliation.

It is a gnostic inversion of reality to impose Christian ascetical doctrine on a whole nation. That is what Communists and all totalitarians do. No Christian has the moral right or authority to tell a nation that it must commit suicide rather than go to war to defend itself, or prevent a catastrophic attack on its people.

As for Vietnam, it was probably the least greedy war that any nation has ever fought. What the communists did to the people of South Vietnam and Cambodia after the war makes everything that the U.S. attempted to do morally justifiable. The fact that a person who served in Vietnam is now anti-war and cynical is certainly understandable, but not the basis for a rational moral order.

Regarding Bush, I should think Christians should applaud the fact that he has turned around his personal life as the result of his faith in God. I am sure that Bush is not pleased that he has to send combat soldiers to his death. He visits VA hospitals regularly and likely weeps over their wounds and disabilities. To suggest that he somehow enjoys this is not only a slander of him personally, but it slanders the all-volunteer force, many of whom, after being treated for the wounds, volunteer to go back to Iraq.

America has been remarkably restrained in its response to 9/11. The Arab states are quite fortunate that I am not President of the U.S.

Owen Jones

03-08-2005, 08:55 PM

BTW, a point a made some time ago on this site is worth repeating: Christ employed armed body guards to protect him, until the appointed hour of his glorification.

Kosmas Damianides

04-08-2005, 01:58 AM

But this was not to be taken literally. Jesus command to take up a sword was a symbolic gesture in ref. to being armed for the spiritual battle which was to come. Jesus always objected to physical violence.

Kosmas Damianides

04-08-2005, 02:02 AM

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" Matthew 26:52-53

Daniel Jeandet

04-08-2005, 02:36 AM

"In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to the Party propaganda. Once when he happened to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs that fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that literally had not occurred to him."

Owen Jones

04-08-2005, 01:38 PM

The sword that Jesus' body guard used to cut off the ear of the centurian was not a metaphor. It was a real sword, being carried by a real person, who Jesus had with him to protect him.

I think all Orthodox Christians should seek to avoid a kind of self-righteousness on issues that have to do with politics, war etc. We have a great gift to offer the world and we need to be careful about distractions. What we manefestly do not know much about is how to run nations.

Leandros Papadopoulos

04-08-2005, 02:28 PM

The sword that Jesus' body guard used to cut off the ear of the centurian was not a metaphor. It was a real sword, being carried by a real person, who Jesus had with him to protect him

(John 18:36) "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

According to Church Fathers the "servants", that the Lord refers to, are the Angels in Heaven.

Christ had NO "body guard".

As for the "encounter" at the arrest of Christ, the defenders of Christ were his disciples and the ear "cutter" was St Peter.

The allegation that Christ had "body guard" is refuted by St Chrysostom, in more than one of his homilies. This allegation is "old news" for Church and the "case" is closed centuries ago and the jurors had turn over their "verdict": THERE WAS NO BODY GUARD.

The only systematic groups that still insist in this allegation are the theosophistic groups.

Jesus was "brought as a lamb to the slaughter". Have you ever seen a "lamb" with body guards?
I have not!

(Isaiah 53:7)He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

(John 1:36)
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

(Acts 8:32-33)
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

Herman Blaydoe

04-08-2005, 02:51 PM

What then, does this mean?:
Luke 22:36-38 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

I assume it was one of those swords that was used in the garden. Why was it there?

Vasilis Kirikos

04-08-2005, 03:36 PM

> [ > "as for Vietnam, it was probably the least greedy war that any nation has ever fought." Obviously you know NOTHING about that war....Greed was the prime motivation AND NOTHING BUT GREED! What stopped that war? What stopped the war was the draft by lottery. This made the sons of the rich guys who had been making all the money on that war have to go and fight....And when that began to happen then the protests became bigger and louder. Johnny rich boy was getting shot and that alone made all the difference. So the war was ended. I cannot believe the naivety in that statement "probably the least greedy war". What a sad joke. The grunts in the field getting their fannies shot off while field grade officers were living it up in air conditioned billets. I suggest you read about Paul Vann on Viet Nam. Greed not a motivating factor/ What a joke. A very sad joke. It was GREED FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN THE BRITISH REARMED THE JAPANESE. IT WAS GREED WHEN THE USA WAS THERE; GREED FROM EVERY ANGLE. Our military officers were using it to advance their careers. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was using it to advance their careers (you had better take a look at what we have in that organization; the DIA. You have to understand that their entire careers are based totally on war.....THEY LOVE WAR! THEY LOVE IT WHEN THIS NATION IS AT WAR! The military industrial complex is a machine what can only thrive on a war economy; and indeed it is quite a machine. It is made up entirely of good ole boys. And the good ole boys in there now are making money hand over fist. Apparently you have no idea. I live in the Washington, DC area and I can tell you stories.

"Regarding Bush, I should think Christians should applaud the fact that he has turned around his personal life as the result of his faith in God. " The very idea sickens me. That entire family has been riding that fake excuse for too long now. When they lived in New England they were Episcopalians because that is the politically expedient religion to be a member. But now that they moved to Texas they suddenly have become fundamental Christians and members of the Baptist church because that is the politically expedient religion to be a member in that area....ONLY THING IS BUSH NEVER ATTENDS CHURCH! Moreover, who told you Bush has "turned around his personal life"? I see no evidence of that. Even his children are doing drugs. VIRTUALLY EVERY ASPECT OF HIS PERSONALITY HE DISPLAYS IS THAT OF THE ADDICT. I could list them but I not on this forum.

Regarding Bush visiting the VA centers ..tell me where? Which centers? He may visit some of the military hospitals. But I can tell you, having worked on the campus of Walter Reed Army Hospital that he is not well received. For one Bush is closing Walter Reed (closing it in the middle of a war! How much care can a man show for his wounded troops!!) Moreover, Bush has sent most of the Guard and Reservist to fight in Iraq...Guard and Reservists have NO RIGHTS TO GO TO THE VA CENTERS. What they get is patched up at the military hospitals and then tossed out on their butts...and that is it.....Good old Bush baby. Also, the VA centers are having their budgets CUT.....Now how much more care can you expect for a man who is said to care so much. Do you have any idea as to how many of their own children these war hawks in the Congress have that are in the military and stationed in Iraq....VIRTUALLY NONE ! BUSH IS A LIAR AND A COM ARTIST. NOTHING MORE. BTW...I can make you a read good deal on a bridge in Brooklyn. Sell it to you real cheap. Interested? Vasilis

Owen Jones

04-08-2005, 05:00 PM

The same things can be said about every war that has ever taken place. Every war is sinful. Every war is a mistake. Every war has its profiteers. No war is fought out of totally pure motives. No political leader has pure motives, peacetime or wartime. The military has its careerists. My response is, so what? As if this is somehow a new discovery? We are not morally superior to anyone, particularly people in the military. Our job is to condemn ourselves, not others. We are to love the sinner, and admit that the evils we see in others is even more manifest in ourselves. It is not the Church's role to point out the obvious, but to root out that which is not so obvious in ourselves. Christianity is not a cause. It is not a soapbox that we get on in order to condemn the moral failings of others.

We should accept people as they are and love them. To the extent others will change, it will be because of the example that we set, and not through condemnation. Christianity is not a resistance movement to evil in the world. It is not an escape. It accepts the spiritual reality that good can come out of evil, depending on our inner disposition. Anger and bitterness at the sufferings and injustices in the world have no place in us. Which is why we should not be issuing condemnatory position papers on various subjects.

One of the clear signs of the collapse of civilization is the loss of the sense of the tragic. We have replaced that with conspiracy theories. And in Christ, the tragic, what we perceive to be a tragedy, becomes the Divine Comedy, the ultimate good ending.

Vasilis Kirikos

04-08-2005, 06:16 PM

> Re: "Christianity is not a cause. It is not a soapbox that we get on in order to condemn the moral failings of others." and " One of the clear signs of the collapse of civilization is the loss of the sense of the tragic." and " No political leader has pure motives, peacetime or wartime. The military has its careerists. My response is, so what? As if this is somehow a new discovery.." WHAT? First you say "so what" in the face of these people who are quite literally murdering people for money; then you say " One of the clear signs of the collapse of civilization is the loss of the sense of the tragic." Are you actually reading the stuff that you are writing? About that bridge...I can sell it to you real cheap! Vasilis.

Kosmas Damianides

04-08-2005, 06:51 PM

Owen Jones

05-08-2005, 01:55 AM

Let me stipulate for the sake of discussion that I am wrong and Mr. Kirikos is right on the subject of war.

My primary interest is the spiritual integrity of the Church and our own spiritual health and well being. Evil and injustice cuts through every heart. Until I become intimately familiar with my own sins, I lack compassion and understanding, and will tend to be on the lookout for sins in others, either societal sins or on the individual level. I then will use that focus as a distraction and an excuse not to look at my own sins. The next step typically is to develop some social theory about how evil society is and present my ideas as the solution. The net result is that I have become what I despise in the society.

I personally have found the chapter in Gulag II about Solzhenitsyn's conversion to be very helpful. Here he was, an innocent victim of Stalin's purges. If anyone had the right to condemn society and the powers that be, Solzhenitsyn would be the one. Yet he completely rejects that as part and parcel of the same problem. This short, moving chapter reflects the Orthodox Christian spirit of the Gospel teaching on evil and repentance.

There is another, non-Orthodox text I have found very helpful. It is the Diary of Etty Hillesum. She was a Jewish "victim" of the Nazis who came to the spiritual understanding that she was no more a victim than her persecutors. She reportedly was batpised prior to being gassed in one of the concentration camps.

The third is the book about Fr. Arseny, of which there has been some discussion here. He did not spend his time in the camps propounding a theory of social evils. What is striking in all three of these accounts is the acceptance, the lack of condemnation of others or vindictiveness toward their oppressors, their lack of alienation and the spiritual harmony with others, regardless of their perspective or status....or crimes.

If we are truly to become the light of the world, we could do a lot worse than learn from these three examples.

I would argue that most of us have suffered unjustly at the hands of others, whether as a combat veteran or the result of family difficulties, or criminal attack, or serious misunderstandings, or being lied to by people we trusted. Our duty is to forgive unconditionally, to harbor no resentments, to focus, not on the evil in the world, but on the good, and to be grateful for all things, good and bad, that we experience and suffer, to the greater Glory of God.

Daniel Jeandet

05-08-2005, 01:58 PM

I heard a story about a monk or priest or someone who was travelling across europe after world war two. He came across two graves, one was the grave of a russian soldier and the other that of a german. I dont know the story exactly, but I think he very distressed over the tradgedy of it, all the violence and confusion and apparent waste of young lives. Both soldiers had fought bravely on what they beleived to be the right side, but both had killed any number of other young men and ended up slaughtered themselves. So this christian man, in his sadness and confusion prayed and asked God to show him which side was right, or which of the soldiers had earned his place in paradise for his brave sacrifice (both soldiers presumably having lived with faith in the same Saviour). After praying the man saw two crowns, perhaps matyrs crowns, descend from above, one over each grave.

So, maybe some wars are initiated for the wrong reasons, but its not always wrong or evil to fight in wars, its just dumb to try and fight war itself. As Owen says, it conveniently distracts us from our personal front line.

Herman Blaydoe

05-08-2005, 04:01 PM

I think Vasilis needs to calm down. I would recommend highly he follow Owen's suggestion and read the life of Fr. Arseny before he continue to sell unowned real estate, as well as spout vituperative platitudes and misconstrued references (which he doesn't own either).

Vasilis Kirikos

05-08-2005, 04:36 PM

I guess Bush supporters will alwyas be Bush supportes even after he is forced to resign and his good buddy, Mr. Rove is in jail where he belongs.

Leandros Papadopoulos

05-08-2005, 10:40 PM

I would argue that most of us have suffered unjustly at the hands of others, whether as a combat veteran or the result of family difficulties, or criminal attack, or serious misunderstandings, or being lied to by people we trusted. Our duty is to forgive unconditionally, to harbor no resentments, to focus, not on the evil in the world, but on the good, and to be grateful for all things, good and bad, that we experience and suffer, to the greater Glory of God

Dear forum members,

There is a passion that is called "indignation". When this "passion" is cured to its normal functionality then we anger against "the evil in the world". This healing is performed by the Church to our souls.

We MUST be angry against child molestation, REAL ANGRY. If we are focusing only “on the good”, then our soul becomes mutilated and it is not functioning correctly. Of course, forgiveness is a major virtue but “anger against the evil” is equally valued as a virtue.

We can argue for many forum pages whether war is an “accepted” practise or not, because this is not an issue of salvation as “wars” are performed from not entities like “nations”/”tribes” and, in this context, they express the absolute absence of relations. And everything that is irrelevant to relations is a non issue for the Church. But the right to be “angry” and “furious” against the “evil in the world” is absolutely accepted – and actually it is recommend - by the Church. This blessed anger against the “evil in the world” does not result in condemning the “evil” doers, because as father Zosima says in the novel of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, “The Brothers Karamazov” (http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=1367): "we are all to blame; everyone bears responsibility for everyone else. We should ask forgiveness "even from the birds”.

I think, Brother Vasilis Kirikos is absolutely justified to be angry with the “evil in the world”. As I understand his messages, he is personalizing the “evil of the war” in specific examples.

The stoic sight of the “evil in the world”, as an unnecessary but inevitable event, is refuted by the Orthodox Church.

You can find more on this Orthodox perspective of “the evil in the world” in the reported novel: “The Brothers Karamazov” (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140449248/ref=pd_sbs_b_4/002-9431016-1155222?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance%20). You can find here "a study" (http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/solove.htm) and "a review" (http://www.powells.com/review/2002_05_30.html).

M.C. Steenberg

07-08-2005, 02:22 PM

Dear all,

In the course of the above, Owen wrote:

Every war is sinful. Every war is a mistake. Every war has its profiteers. No war is fought out of totally pure motives. No political leader has pure motives, peacetime or wartime. The military has its careerists. […] As if this is somehow a new discovery? We are not morally superior to anyone, particularly people in the military. Our job is to condemn ourselves, not others. We are to love the sinner, and admit that the evils we see in others is even more manifest in ourselves. It is not the Church's role to point out the obvious, but to root out that which is not so obvious in ourselves. Christianity is not a cause. It is not a soapbox that we get on in order to condemn the moral failings of others.

It is rare that I am asked to review a book and do not accept (it is part and parcel of the hat I wear), but there was recently published a book on ‘justifiable war’ theory in Orthodoxy which, upon reading, I sent back without comment. The whole notion of a ‘just war’ is a deplorable perversion of Christian teaching. War is always an evil, regardless of circumstance or merit. It may at times be ethically the best (and therefore defensible) decision to go to war (e.g. in the face of genocide), but this never makes it just or right.

The true battle, the just battle, is the war that takes place in the human heart. Until this war is engaged and won, the wars of the world, which are always the result of sin, will never cease. But until that time, we must never come to think that the fighting of these worldly wars is ‘just’. The Church’s approach to asceticism and purification is not to deny sin, but to admit it and confront it. We will be forced to deal with and within it in this world, but always as the fruit of sin in the context of sin. The soldier who kills in battle is not excommunicated as a murderer, but still must repent before receiving the holy gifts.

INXC, Matthew

Vasilis Kirikos

08-08-2005, 01:16 AM

I think that a quote from the FDR Memorial says it all: "I HATE WAR" Vasilis

Owen Jones

08-08-2005, 04:13 AM

But that does not solve the problem, does it? And it is paradoxical, to say the least, coming from FDR. Many people in the U.S. at the time accused him of being a war lover. Historically, the best war preventive was the British Empire. The fought a number of minor wars around the world to gain control or to maintain control of their colonies. But Europe and most of the rest of the world were largely peaceful for 100 years between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and WWI because of the Pax Brittannia.

Byron Jack Gaist

08-08-2005, 07:37 AM

I have not been following this discussion closely, but I read M.C.Steenberg's post above(#703), and wish to thank him for putting the issue so well into words. Life as created by God is sacred to all Christians, and the taking of life, intentionally or not, is a sin. War therefore, is at best a necessary evil - I cannot see it ever being "just".

In Christ,
Byron

Adam Cody

08-08-2005, 08:36 AM

Isn't the actual translation of the commandment "Do not murder" rather than "Do not kill". Where exactly does scripture tell us it is a "sin" when a soilder "kills" in a war?

Herman Blaydoe

08-08-2005, 05:54 PM

Does ANYBODY participating in this discussion LOVE war or even say it is "good" or even "necessary"? I seriously think not. However, I think we disagree on whether or not it is sometimes unavoidable and what to do in that situation.

Owen Jones

08-08-2005, 06:40 PM

The real question is what do Christians do? There are many cases in which the Church supports a war while recognizing it as evil, because the greater evil would be the destruction of the nation and perhaps even the Church. That Orthodoxy does not have "just war theory" per se does not mean that in practice Christians have not been placed in a situation of having to go to war or back a war. Orthodox countries such as Serbia fought many battles against the Muslim invaders. I doubt the Church leaders of the day were debating whether it was just or not. Now that there are no Christian nations, the situation is a bit different. Rulers are secular and are not beholden in any way to Church discipline. The Church's role is to pick up the pieces as best we can. But there is a practical problem. If the Church vociferously, publicly condemns a war that its nation has entered into, thereby undermining public morale and aiding the enemy, it is treasonous. We can speak out in free societies because we know that they will not enforce the treason laws. But have we no obligations whatsoever to the secular state? When we enjoy its protections?

Daniel Jeandet

09-08-2005, 04:00 AM

Assuming for now that we enjoy the protection of secular states and have decided it would be treasonous to oppose the war we are involved in.

As the situation changes, when would our obligation to our countrymen, soldiers and our enemies override our obligation to the state? How do we know when the state has gone too far or is lying about the situation and requires our silence and other forms of support to continue with what has become an abuse of power instead of an extension of the protection we enjoy?

For many people, the photographic evidence of tourture and the documented intentions of our secular leaders to lie about WMD's is enough for them to begin publicly opposing the war and the people who initiated it. This action is not always motivated by denial of personal sinfullness or an ideological need to eliminate suffering or simple leftist angsnt.

Adam Cody

09-08-2005, 04:55 AM

Herman wrote: "Does ANYBODY participating in this discussion LOVE war or even say it is "good" or even "necessary"? I seriously think not. However, I think we disagree on whether or not it is sometimes unavoidable and what to do in that situation."

Yes, I find at times it is necessary and in consideration of not having a war..that it is good. Satan and evil are real. Satans power over each of us is by consent of our free-will. A leader of a country has given consent to Satan to rule him when that leader orders mass murder of it's citizens or it's neighbors. No amount of prayer can provoke God to change a mans freewill decision -- God can only offer him reasons why to change his mind. Until the leader does, those with a freewill choice to defend the innocent must defend them. Is any war a black and white issue -- no, of course not. Does it matter to a six year old girl being raped by drugged up rebels in the Sudan? Watch "Sometimes in April" and tell me sitting on the sidelines works for the innocent.

Adam

M.C. Steenberg

09-08-2005, 10:14 AM

Dear Herman,

Thank you for your post. However, there are a great number of people in the Christian world (though perhaps, on appearance, not presently in this forum) who do feel that war can be 'good', and certainly 'necessary'.

How something can be always intrinsicly evil, yet still the best possible choice from a given set of situations, is part-and-parcel with the state of a sinful world. The problem with many attempts at articulating Christian ethics is that the fact that, since an evil choice may be necessary, many are tempted therefore to call it 'good', or 'just'. This is a result not supportable by genuine Christian doctrine.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

09-08-2005, 03:22 PM

We just don't have the option, most of the time, of clear, black and white, moral choices, when dealing with public matters. I see no evidence, by the way, that various "anti-war" movements of the 20th century, whether of the secular or religious stripe, have actually prevented or shortened any wars. The anti-Vietnam War movement, if anything, prolonged the U.S. involvement. It certainly did not shorten it by one day. So the motives as well as the practical results of resistance are just as vulnerable to moral analysis as the decisions of the political leaders who take us to war. To say that there might be some clear, moral threshold point at which Christians are obligated to then oppose their government when engaged in an unjust war is problematic. To leave it up to individual conscience does not resolve any moral dillemma. Conscience is often an excuse for self-deception and self-promotion. The current situation in Iraq is a case in point. The terrorists and "insurgents" there are sincerely hoping that news reports of casualties will break the AMerican public's will to fight, which is a large motivation behind their own continuance of the conflict. This is not a defense per se of the Coalition invasion of Iraq, simply an observation that moral choices, which are often blurry in normal life, become extremely blurred in warfare.

REgading historical examples, I don't know what preaching took place in Russia in 1914 or in 1942 when the Nazis invaded, but my impression is that the Church took the position that it was a holy obligation to defend the Rodina. One need not go from there to create some universal theory of just war. It is a practical response to a particular situation in which the whole nation is threatened with annihiliation, particularly with respect to the Nazi invasion. Interestingly, a million Russian troops defected to the Nazis during World War II, (Mostly Ukrainians I think), because of the persecution they had experienced under Stalin. After the war, the British returned them to Russia so that they could all be shot. BTW, tyranny and totalitarianism are often promoted among a receptive populace by promising social peace and harmony and unity. Tyrannical regimes often go to ar in order to command even more slavish obedience by the populace, and deflect any potential domestic discontent. There is an argument that democracies do not go to war against each other, which is one of the arguments in favor of trying to turn Iraq into a democracy -- to prevent further wars. OF course, democracies do not need to go to war with each other because they commit suicide instead. The Church has a far greater challenge than war facing it -- the problem of the moral and spiritual collapse within secular democratic states and the widespread attitude that the Church is simply irrelevant.

Daniel Jeandet

10-08-2005, 01:53 AM

Good post owen. anti-war movements and pacifism can also play into the hands of tyrants who use those movements to strengthen thier support at home, and Ill take your word for it that they have not shortened or stopped any wars.

It seems like all the options open to us, either supporting or condemming wars are choices arising from the secular set-up itself. We want to avoid making decisions based on ideology or secular pressures but the "Orthodox view on war", should it be different to the Orthodox view on everything else? Even if it comes down to individual conscience, and they are taking your neighbors to the concentration camps and you can either join them or keep your mouth shut and keep enjoying the protections of the state, even for people who make the wrong decision and support the state against thier neighbor, like happened in Russia and Germany alot I assume, we know from books like Father Arseny that even those people who spied on Him or worked for Communists found salvation through the Church in spite of, or maybe because of that decision to support secular tyranny.

No circumstances arise that God does not allow. We cannot judge circumstances or people. Even New-agers get this point much better than most Christians. They are constantly warning each other of the effects of feeling angry, fearful or disturbed about the war because many of them believe invisible entities are feeding of this fear and negativity more than they are feeding off the actual violence and destruction. I geuss that is just another conspiracy theory http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Vasilis Kirikos

10-08-2005, 03:36 AM

"For though we walk in the flesh we do not war according to the flesh, for our weapons are not carnal but mighty in God, for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into the captivity of Christ..." (2 Corinthians 10:2-5) I thank you for this reminder, Kosmas. And I am sorry for my part in this fray. ** I know that all anger is masked fear.** The spirit of fear is from Satan; and Satan will seek out our weaknesses and use them against us. And I am weak. However, we have an advocate in the Father, Jesus Christ; and He is strong when and where I am weak.* * I realize that one must keep their peace and not let Satan steal it. **I shall now try to respond only to blessings and only offer blessings and ignore all the rest. I did this recently and found that those who would argue fled...Apparently they were not getting the responses they wanted so they left !! I recall some writing about a saint of whom it was said the moment anyone began to talk about another person in unkind words in his presence he would immediately fall asleep! I think that going to sleep was his way of responding to those who would attempt to drag him into some argument and their anger/fear. * *I am beginning to realize in my walk in this life that one cannot keep their joy in the Lord and respond unkindly at the same time. I also realize that I should not attempt to persuade others in heated arguments; especially concerning Christ vis-`a-vis another religion. I can only show Christ by the way I live and speak in my daily life. And words and acts of anger/fear are not what The Lord taught. Vasilis.

Leandros Papadopoulos

11-08-2005, 12:28 AM

The Church has a far greater challenge than war facing it

Dear forum members,

Why "war" is going to be absent from the "future life in paradise"?

Do war " tolerators" have an answer for this question ?

And another question, that is very similar to the first one: what is the definition of “peace”? (a definition independent from “war”)

This thread is going on accepting/denying the "war issue" as a self-standing challenge. At one point I thought that the discussion was about air pollution. Maybe for several people it is very hard to realize the difference between war and air pollution questions.

As for the argument that Church in many cases “endorsed” specific wars, this is like accepting shooting at your feet as a normal shooting practice, because it is historically documented that many people had done exactly that and they hit the “target”. Then the logical conclusion is to practice shooting at your feet, just in case you are involved in a situation like that, because you are in danger to miss the “target”.

May God bless us, all.

Owen Jones

11-08-2005, 01:31 AM

It's rarely a question of the Church, or of Christians "tolerating" a war. And I'm afraid I do not get the analogy. The Church has the capability of calling a spade a spade. All war is evil and sinful. All war is unjust. But we are forced into situations that we did not ask for by evil people and evil forces that do not always permit us the luxury of pacific behavior. But the key problem is that the Church does not have the moral right to tell a nation or a ruler that it must not resort to war in self-defense. A ruler who is not willing to fight, when the nation still has a fighting chance to defend itself, will be removed from office, a la Chamberlain. To look at such situations rationally does not mean one is a warmonger.

A similar situation pertains to violent criminals. Societies have tried all kinds of theories to punish and/or rehabilitate violent criminals. Christians have always been at the forefront. But the problem remains that some people have to be locked up to prevent them from hurting more people. And there is a certain justice in punishing severe crimes severely, and also severe punishment does act to some extent as a deterrent. I just don't know how we escape these realities, even though we know that prisons are really bad places in which a lot of unnecessary suffering takes place.

The classical ideal, of course, is to leave the world and enter into a contemplative life. This seems to be the best response to evil in the world. This witness serves an iconic function. But no matter how powerful this witness can be, and I think we need a "reformation" in the Church that will return us to this classical ideal -- a more other-worldly ideal, we cannot impose that ideal on a nation when it is threatened with attack or invasion or defeat or destruction. The result is always some kind of totalitarianism. Castro, a failed seminarian, has tried to impose the monastic ideal on an entire nation, with disastrous results, great sinfulness and injustice.

I am glad that our Church has not developed some almost jesuitical just war theory. On the other hand, the reality of war is not something that we can just self-righteously condemn in the abstract. A fighter for his nation cannot become too heartsick about the sinfulness of it, lest he refuse to fight. Our job is to cure the sickness of the soul, one man at a time.

Leandros Papadopoulos

11-08-2005, 03:25 AM

But the key problem is that the Church does not have the moral right to tell a nation or a ruler that it must not resort to war in self-defense.

Dear Owen Jones and friends,

First, "self-defence" is not an absolute right, especially on cases that "self" is an impostor that has taken over the real "self" and proclaims the self-defence as an excuse for his tyrannical excessive ruling. When the "self-defence" issue is raised, then there is always an answer needed to clarify who the genuine “self” is, in order to defend it.

Then, Church never intended to "tell" anything to anybody. She just preaches the END of the show. War, injustice, vanity, good and bad behaviour, justice and injustice, virtue and evil have come to an end with the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ. The time period, when the human race was under the “law” is over- the law was (and still) is a role playing script. After the resurrection of Christ, there is no need for restoration, there is no need for rehabilitation, and there is no “need” for anything. Since the resurrection of Christ, the period of “freedom” has started. This period is the “reign/kingdom of the heavens” and it is offered to EVERYONE, not just to the Church members. So, why do I need to rehabilitate a violent criminal, since he is being accepted in the reign/kingdom of the heavens unconditionally? I do not need to instruct him how to play another role, the Christian one. Church does not ask a violent criminal to become another person. She just asks him to accept that the show is over, that his self of “violent criminal” is a role and that he is not identified as the violent person by the Church. Church is identifying him as the real person that he is as a coheir of Christ. Even the most repulsive violent criminal has already been established as a coheir of Christ and this has nothing to do with his behaviour.

There are some people who will never accept that the show is over, that the role playing has ended and the REAL FREE LIFE has already begun in Church, and they will continue to “play” their roles for ever. Actually, there are even Christians that are refusing to abandon the role playing life and they are adherent to the “good” law. Both, evil and good role playing were not being justified by the Church. Church justifies the free way of being in Christ.

Church member are not forced into evil situations. Church members are not living a situational life; they are living a relational life. This means that the self-defence issue is a non-issue for the Church, because her member’s pleasure is to live the lives of others, no matter how “destructive” this pleasure may become for them. There is nothing that is powerful enough to remove the heritage of Christ from them, which was given to them for free - by adoption.

Somehow, in this thread I am feeling an unspoken justification for self. SELF is supposed to have an absolute dimension that it is valued by its own measure. This is the case for animals. This is not the case for human beings. Humans are persons and they are not counted in nations and in groups. There is no national or ideological identification of a human being.

Nations and groups are ontologically void superstructures that are being imposed as the result of impersonal way of being. For that, they fight one another and they can not exist in peace. It is like my house that has to be in its place, imposing its presence to everybody else – if nobody else realizes the presence of my house then it becomes an illusion, a non being. It is a creation that needs to be imposed to others or else it can not exist at all. This is a principle that is followed by all impersonal ways of being that we sometimes we call “war” and other times we call it “self-defence”.

But, Christ has offered to us His peace. Christ’s peace is the personal way of being in personal relation with the others. For example if my wife loves me and nobody else realizes her love for me, then there is no need for her love to be imposed to anybody else. Our loving relation is so personal that it is based in our mutual personal faith. The relational way of being in love with the other person is so totally free from everything and anyone else that rests in peace and has no need to fight against somebody. The “self-defence” and the “war” are becoming meaningless regarding to the relational way of being.

If I extend my loving personal relation with my wife in my relations with everybody else, then I experience (in an analogy) the Church membership experience, the experience of being a coheir of Christ. The heritage of Christ is His relation with His Father in Spirit. This is the peace and the perfection that He has offered to everyone.

Owen Jones

11-08-2005, 03:45 PM

Nations, cultures and societies are part of the fabric of reality, of experience, that makes us what we are. There is no pure self, or pure Christianity, apart from societies and cultures, languages, traditions, etc. In any case, a nation is not a self. It is not the same thing. One must make rational distinctions.

btw, my house is not an illusion, a non-being, whatever that means. I do not believe that Christianity is situational. I do believe that we are often forced into situations beyond our control, in which our actions are circumscribed. We rarely have the option of living a pure Christianity. We are often faced with less than ideal choices. The eschatology of the Church is not an excuse for gnostic illusion.

Leandros Papadopoulos

11-08-2005, 07:09 PM

We rarely have the option of living a pure Christianity.

Dear Owen Jones,

Can you please clarify, when and under which circumstances do we have this option offered to us? ( I can not figure out what you mean by that...)

Owen Jones

11-08-2005, 09:17 PM

Most of us have to make a few compromises with the Devil for the sake of our social obligations. Presumably, the monastic is not bound by such worldly obligations.

Leandros Papadopoulos

12-08-2005, 01:18 AM

Most of us have to make a few compromises with the Devil for the sake of our social obligations. Presumably, the monastic is not bound by such worldly obligations.

Dear Brother Owen Jones,

If I understand you correctly, it seems to me that you make a certain false evaluation of reality.

I think that it is the monastic that are "fighting" devil in the front line and the rest of us are behind the line. It is our privilege to be "protected" in the safe "embankment" of the "Unseen Warfare" (http://www.roca.org/OA/5/5d.htm) that the monastic "warriors" maintain, while they fight against the Devil twenty four hours every single day in their lives.

Our plethoric impersonal lifestyle (including fighting actual wars against each other) is probably covering the real issue that is our immobile status.

I understand your point of view, and I think that it is reasonable enough. But it introduces in human anthropology a specific way of being choice makers and nothing else beyond that. You present human beings as “circumscribed” in situations beyond control. In these situations it seems that there is no exit gate and that humans are actually preconditioned in the specific situations.

Well, let me give you an example of what I think as a disproof of such acceptance. Before two hundred years ago, Greece was occupied by Ottoman Turks. The occupational army defeated the resistance of a small town, near my home town. After the defeat, all young women of the town seek refuge in nearby hills. They were trying to avoid capturing from the army since they knew that they were predestined for the slave market (raping was their most certain dreadful future and many of them were very young women – almost children). In their effort to escape they were trapped in a dead end. In front of them there was an escarpment too deep to overcome and the army was after them. So what did the do? They started a circle dance and one after the other —while singing and dancing— they threw themselves (the mothers holding their babes in their arms) over the cliffs rather than surrender to the Turks. They would never accept being captured because this was considered a betrayal of their relation with Christ.

There are two similar incidents in Greek History: The incident in Zalogo village (1802) and the incident in Arapitsa village (1822).

These incidents may seem absurd, as young Orthodox Christian girls/women were throwing themselves over a cliff for a matter of Christian faith. Was their action a suicide or a sacrifice? Well, Greek Orthodox Church considers both of those cases as sacrifices.

So, what it seems as a preconditioned situation, it may have an exit gate after all. What is important is to overcome the fake belief that we are made from our experiences. Experience is defined as the reality that we consume when we fail to consume the reality that we were after in the first place. What the women/girls did in the cliff throwing instances was an act of insistency not to be defined by their experiences- they insisted to be defined by the persons with whom they were related with.

Let me also present another example: “The forty martyrs of sebaste” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/40MAR.htm). These were soldiers of the Roman Empire that were arrested for being Christians and they were convicted to die exposed quite naked on the ice over a frozen pond. There was a certain incident that took place in their martyrdom: After they had suffered for hours the freezing torment, “the judge ordered both those that were dead with the cold, and those that were still alive, to be laid on carriages, and cast into a fire. When the rest were thrown into a waggon to be carried to the pile, the youngest of them (whom the acts call Melito) was found alive; and the executioners, hoping he would change his resolution when he came to himself, left him behind. His mother, a woman of mean condition, and a widow, but rich in faith and worthy to have a son a martyr, observing this false compassion, reproached the executioners; and when she came up to her son, whom she found quite frozen, not able to stir, and scarce breathing, he looked on her with languishing eyes, and made a little sign with his weak hand to comfort her. She exhorted him to persevere to the end, and, fortified by the Holy Ghost, took him up, and put him with her own hands into the waggon with the rest of the martyrs, not only without shedding a tear, but with a countenance full of joy, saying courageously: "Go, go, son, proceed to the end of this happy journey with thy companions, that thou mayest not be the last of them that shall present themselves before God."

I think that these specific sacrifices were not “choices”. They were not heroic actions against compromise. They were denials to act on the basis of a circumscribed way. They were imitations of Christ’s example, Who had denied acting in a circumscribed way, when He was asked to “come down from the Cross”. These sacrifices were not idealistic or realistic behaviours. They were faithful behaviours to their respective specific relations. If these behaviours were to be taken out of their specific relations, then would become meaningless and repulsive.

The comparative conclusion about monastic and secular lifestyle and the assumption that there are external situations prescribing our relation with God is not valid, according to Church tradition and life.

As St Paul have said: “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. (Romans 8:38-39)

The RELATION is above all.

May God bless us, all.

Owen Jones

12-08-2005, 02:01 AM

Sounds like we're getting into hair splitting here. We use the analogy of warfare to describe the ascetic life. It is an analogy. A military man is going to have to kill people. Period. The Church used to prescribe various penances for this, whilst allowing for the fact that the Christian warrior was doing his duty. We make those distinctions for pastoral reasons, because obviously different standards apply to different people according to their circumstance. I am not building a theory or ideology around that.

Svetlana

14-09-2005, 05:19 PM

This is my first post on this forum - I have spent last few hours reading messages from various threads and I'm grateful to know a place like this exists, where members of the Eastern Orthodox Church can exchange views freely, without being exposed to ridicule and shushed down.

Regarding the issue of just or unjust war, as far as I know, Eastern Orthodox Church holds a view that defending one's land, home and family from an aggressor is not only permitted, but expected. Church is not walled off from the world and it does not expect us to pretend nothing is happening if we are taken to a collective slaughter.

Owen has already mentioned the very concrete example no one commented on: the plight of Orthodox Serbs not only in the nineties (through the series of bloody civil wars), but also through both World Wars and during the five centuries of Ottoman occupation. Orthodox nations are the ones who are on the front line of radical Islamic aggression and are the intersection between Muslim and Western parts of the world. They were forced to defend their lands numerous times from aggressors from both sides and their churches (i.e. Russian, Greek, Serbian etc) were, for the past thousand years, equally aware of the threats and have suffered through these barbarous attacks along with their spiritual children.

We were always called on, by our Patriarchs and Bishops, to prayer and to repent for our sins, both individual and national (and still are, by His Holiness, Patriarch Pavle), but we were never told not to fight back, not to defend our homes and children, to sit back and wait for our turn to come under the knife.

Serbian nation has never in its history led a war of aggression, but it has been defending its lands throughout our history.

In Christ,
Svetlana

Leandros Papadopoulos

15-09-2005, 01:20 PM

Welcome Sister Svetlana,

I took the time and browse through your web site (http://www.byzantinesacredart.com/). I think that it is one of the best Orthodox web sites about iconography. I liked it very much.

I think that Orthodox theology is expressed at its best through Orthodox Iconography.

Leandros

Svetlana

15-09-2005, 01:37 PM

Dear brother in Christ Leandros,

thank you for this warm greeting and kindness! I hope no one would find it inappropriate if I say there is so much love within Serbian nation for Greeks (and for our great big brother, Russians) and so much gratitude for their support during the latest wars and 78 days of NATO bombardment of Serbia, it is really difficult to put into words.

Serbs have no better neighbor and friend than Greeks and this friendship has been tried and confirmed through many wars and centuries. We even have a saying, told in the hardest of times, when there seems no one to trust or turn to: (Put your faith) In God and Greeks!

In Christ,
Svetlana

Ronnie Shakespeare

29-08-2011, 02:07 PM

Dear all,

In the course of the above, Owen wrote:

It is rare that I am asked to review a book and do not accept (it is part and parcel of the hat I wear), but there was recently published a book on ‘justifiable war’ theory in Orthodoxy which, upon reading, I sent back without comment. The whole notion of a ‘just war’ is a deplorable perversion of Christian teaching. War is always an evil, regardless of circumstance or merit. It may at times be ethically the best (and therefore defensible) decision to go to war (e.g. in the face of genocide), but this never makes it just or right.

The true battle, the just battle, is the war that takes place in the human heart. Until this war is engaged and won, the wars of the world, which are always the result of sin, will never cease. But until that time, we must never come to think that the fighting of these worldly wars is ‘just’. The Church’s approach to asceticism and purification is not to deny sin, but to admit it and confront it. We will be forced to deal with and within it in this world, but always as the fruit of sin in the context of sin. The soldier who kills in battle is not excommunicated as a murderer, but still must repent before receiving the holy gifts.

INXC, Matthew

What i cant understand if war is always and evil regardless of circumstances or merit. What does that make God in the old testament that was behind war that he commanded his people to go to war?
Also i read in Exodus 15:3>The LORD is a Man of war, the LORD is his name.

Anna Stickles

30-08-2011, 04:56 AM

Ronnie Shakespeare

31-08-2011, 08:43 AM

Matt 19:7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.

God has to work with a human race whose hearts are inclined to evil all the time. So a lesser evil is used to prevent a greater evil.

But this is not how it will be in heaven and St Basil has this to say about our Christian life. "The Lord describes in the Gospel the pattern of life we must be trained to follow after the baptismal resurrection: gentleness, endurance, freedom from the defiling love of pleasure, and from covetousness. We must be determined to aquire in this life all the qualities of the life to come."

you say we must determined to aquire in this life all the qualities of the life to Come. Well in the life to Come we will neither be married or given in marraige. But plenty will be in marraige in this life till the day they die and it is not a SIN. Plenty have died and will die in war. The question is were they in SIN?

Ok Jesus said moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. Alot of this was to do with their attitude. They see a more younger attractive women so they want to get rid of their old wife and marry a new one. But in the new testament he says they must not diviorce their wife eccept for fornication. So Jesus did even Give a acception here.

When jesus said do not resist a evil person if someone slaps you on the cheak turn to him the other if some one wants force you to go 1 mile go with him 2 miles. What does Jesus want us to do if we turned the other cheak and had that slapped. Keep turning it and keep getting slapped.? Or go mile after mile for thousands of miles if someone forces you?
From how i see it. He saying have a bit a patiance and a long fuse when resisting a evil person. Proverbs says you have Good sense and great understanding when you are slow in anger and James tells us to be slow in anger. The lord is slow in anger. But if you do finally get Angry with a right cause. Is that a Sin?

God finally got angry with the people of Sodom and Gammorah and killed them all himself.

Also i read in the old testament that going to war was a Command by God to his people to wipe out a city. Because God was not pleased with the way those people behaved in that city. So if it is a command by God and his will to do this. would it have been a Sin by the people Not to obey God here?

God told moses to kill sombody who collected fire wood on the sabbath. He also comanded his people kill others for certain other sins. Would they have sinned if they did not not obey God by killing these people for their sins?

Also in revelation when Jesus returns he will make war against the entire wicked world that is against him. What does that make Jesus?

Would that make Jesus a lesser evil like us to prevent a greater evil?

I did read in the old testament that God was behind some wars. But other wars his people went to he was not behind and those people sinned because of this.

Don't get me wrong i dont like the Idea of being involved in any war or killing anybody for some crime that they have commited. I dont want to Judge anybody who is against war or against killing others for crimes that they have commited. I am Just trying to understand the truth about all this. Also i am not to sure about Judging all people in all wars on earth. In revealation it says the Cowardly will be thrown in the lake of fire. Could this mean the Cowardly in being a soldier when it Comes to some certain wars?

Herman Blaydoe

31-08-2011, 11:40 AM

The "why" is important, not just the "what".

Rob Bergen

20-10-2011, 10:25 PM

The early Christian Church was persecuted beyond belief, we have hundreds, nay, thousands of Martyrs who died for their faith rather than fight "with the sword," or renounce Christ. I would assume that there may have been enough Christians around to gather some sort of rebellion, like the Jews did, and fight against persecution. Though, with the slaughter of Bar Kokhbas' followers, there was probably sufficient reason not to revolt. Many of the apologists were arguing with the Emperor regarding the treatment of Christians. The Christians wanted to be left alone, they would pay their taxes, but not worship the Emperor. They thought that this was not too much to ask (but apparently it was).

War was not on the radar of early Christians, they were trying to live as peaceful citizens. It was not until Constantine, and the subsequent emperors, that war became entangle with Christianity. One Christianity became unified to political government and power, war became "Christian."

I suppose what I am getting at is this: Christians were not supposed to take up war (One of the reasons that they were persecuted was because they refused to serve in the Emperor's army). But, Christianity inevitably became entangle with politics, and thus war was brought into the religious sphere. In order to administer an empire, even a Christian empire, war was sometimes necessary, especially in defense. Perhaps the solution now, in a secular age, is to say we should be able to divorce ourselves from the dealings of the "state." That is, live as Christians apart from our countries. How does a Christian who holds political office make the distinction, and the decision? I don't know. This is a tough question.

Daniel R.

20-10-2011, 10:48 PM

I suppose what I am getting at is this: Christians were not supposed to take up war (One of the reasons that they were persecuted was because they refused to serve in the Emperor's army). I know where you are coming from but, it was not that they refused to serve in the army but they refused do wrong in the army such as kill fellow Christians for the emperor or worship idols in celebration. Saint George did not refuse to serve in the army, nor did the Forerunner forbid it but rather the first would not worship idols and the second forbade greed.

In Christ.
Daniel,

Herman Blaydoe

20-10-2011, 10:57 PM

The 40 Martyrs of Sebaste (http://www.40martyrs.org/forty-martyrs.html) were martyred not because they refused to fight, but because they were Christians actively serving IN THE ROMAN ARMY who refused to sacrifice to pagan gods. They are properly sainted martyrs recognized by the Church.

Rob Bergen

21-10-2011, 02:44 AM

I am not questioning the sainthood of persons. I am, rather, trying to understand the origins of Christian thought towards warfare. It is a fact that many Christians in the first centuries were opposed to service in the army. Tertullian, for one, wrote an interesting little treatise called De Corona (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm), which advocates a position against serving in the military for a variety of reasons, one of which you mentioned above…burning incense for the Emperor (pagan gods). Origen also writes on this subject, in length, in his work called Contra Celsium (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm). I would look at books IV and VII of Contra Celsium. Among these there are others. Here is a little summary (http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/33-1/nonviolence-in-the-ancient-church-and-christian-obedience#b35), written a few years ago, that has some information on early Christians anti-war writing.

Like I said before, it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion. There are many who advocate that Christians should be pacifist, but there are greater still a number that would say pacifism is impractical, and in some ways harmful. I myself have not arrived at a single conclusion as of yet. I guess I am glad that we don't have the draft, otherwise I would be forced to face the issue more immediately!

Jeremy Troy

21-10-2011, 04:18 AM

I have a book called The Pacifist Option that evidently started as the author's thesis for a Th.D. in Orthodox moral theology somewhere or other, and it seems to be a pretty comprehensive study of the Patristic and Canonical stances on war and violence. I haven't read all of it yet. It's by Fr. Alexander Webster. Is anyone familiar with this book?

Bryan J. Maloney

29-10-2011, 06:18 PM

In the Saracen encampment they asked St. Cyril: “How can Christians wage war and at the same time keep Christ’s commandment to pray to God for their enemies?’’ To this, St. Cyril replied: “If two commandments were written in one law and given to men for fulfilling, which man would be a better follower of the law: The one who fulfilled one commandment or the one who fulfilled both?’ The Saracens replied: “Undoubtedly, he who fulfills both commandments.” St. Cyril continued: “Christ our God commands us to pray to God for those who persecute us and even do good to them, but He also said to us, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. That is why we bear the insults that our enemies cast at us individually and why we pray to God for them. However, as a society, we defend one another and lay down our lives, so that the enemy would not enslave our brethren, would not enslave their souls with their bodies, and would not destroy them in both body and soul.”

--Prologue of Ohrid

Effie Ganatsios

30-10-2011, 10:17 AM

You may or may not know that the 28th of October is a huge holiday in Greece. We said NO to Mussolini's demand to free access to Greece and to the "peaceful" occupation of our land. As a result we were attacked on our northern borders by both the Italians and the Albanians.

As a result of this national holiday war films of this battle have been shown on TV the last couple of days.

Something that touched me was that these heroic men were blessed by a priest and one by one kissed the holy cross before going into battle.

On the identification cards issued to our troops there was a picture - tiny icon - of the Theotokos.

"St. Cyril continued: “Christ our God commands us to pray to God for those who persecute us and even do good to them, but He also said to us, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. That is why we bear the insults that our enemies cast at us individually and why we pray to God for them. However, as a society, we defend one another and lay down our lives, so that the enemy would not enslave our brethren, would not enslave their souls with their bodies, and would not destroy them in both body and soul.”

--Prologue of Ohrid "

These brave boys who went to war voluntarily laid down their lives for their fellow men. And we honour them.