War heroes vs. saints

[John Litster]

Hello all,

In nearly every Orthodox country there have been people, who lead predominantly military or political careers or even died in battle, who are hailed as saints and/or martyrs. The two examples that immediately come to mind are Prince Vladimir of Russia and Prince Lazar of Serbia. Both of these are commemorated, and rightly so, as national heroes, but I would venture to say that neither of these rightly deserve the title of saint. Besides the dubious nature of whether dying while engaged in battle counts as martyrdom, when one looks at the true historical characters beneath all the legend, one finds that true attributes of saintliness - that is, ones who have attained theosis and union with God, is often simply not there. Some of these heroes (for such they are) had distinctly unsaintly traits. Prince Vladimir, for instance, after whom our own Seminary in Crestwood is dedicated, died in 1014 en route to battle against his own son, who had stopped paying him tribute.

So, that's my five cents worth (or a little more) on the matter. I look forward to hearing your input!

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think we do well not to mess with another man's saints. Nobody is telling you to set up an icon in your house to a particular saint, or to pilgrimage to his shrine. There are plenty of saints. I suggest we pray with the ones that we feel close to and don't disparage the ones we don't.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.
Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I would strongly affirm what Herman has said.

Unless we see history like St Nikolai Velimirovich did it has the habit of betraying us with its secular view of reality.

In paricular it frequently is blind as to human motive and since it usually is not moved by humility it has a notoriously difficult time admitting uncertainty over whether events occurred a certain way.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

Prince Vladimir, for instance, after whom our own Seminary in Crestwood is dedicated, died in 1014 en route to battle against his own son, who had stopped paying him tribute.

I should confess up front that I don't know much about the life of Prince Vladimir, but it appears to me that there is more than meets the eye here, regarding the conflict between him and his son. When I read the above statement, it reminds me, in a way, of the conflict between King David and his son, Absalom (Absolom?). If memory serves me, the conflict between David and Absalom was the divine retribution for his sins of adultery and murder. Still, despite those transgressions, God still viewed King David as essentially a man eminently after His (the Lord's) heart.

With regard to the question of "military men" being recognized as saints, the life of King David speaks to that as well. Being a man after the heart of God, David "dreamed" of building the Lord a great temple; however, the Lord did not bless him to do that, on account of the blood upon his hands, or on account of his life as a military man, which we may observe from the following scripture texts:-


1 Chron. 22:7-8 "David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God: But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight."


1 Chron 28:2-3 "Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people: As for me, I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building: But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood."

Despite his being a man of war, who had shed a great amount of blood in the taking of many lives, and despite his sins of adultery and murder, King David was a man eminently seeking the heart of God, and a divinely inspired prophet. That is the word of the Lord.

And in light of the revealed facts of Holy Scripture, in regard to how David actually plotted the death of Uriah, I think it is only fair for us to wonder about just how many murders David may have actually commited? How many of those lives taken in the heat of battle really needed to be taken, and were taken upon entirely just grounds?

Nevertheless, I have said all that merely to say this, that King David is a model of the 'military life' in the service to God; and we can no more disqualify Prince Vladimir from the ranks of the saints than we can disqualify King David. How to reconcile the two is not an easy thing, for human reasoning, but it can be done with the help of God, both time and patience permitting.

[Evan]

Hello all,

In nearly every Orthodox country there have been people, who lead predominantly military or political careers or even died in battle, who are hailed as saints and/or martyrs. The two examples that immediately come to mind are Prince Vladimir of Russia and Prince Lazar of Serbia. Both of these are commemorated, and rightly so, as national heroes, but I would venture to say that neither of these rightly deserve the title of saint. Besides the dubious nature of whether dying while engaged in battle counts as martyrdom, when one looks at the true historical characters beneath all the legend, one finds that true attributes of saintliness - that is, ones who have attained theosis and union with God, is often simply not there. Some of these heroes (for such they are) had distinctly unsaintly traits. Prince Vladimir, for instance, after whom our own Seminary in Crestwood is dedicated, died in 1014 en route to battle against his own son, who had stopped paying him tribute.

Umm... is the idea here that being a soldier or a politician makes it impossible to achieve theosis and union with God? Are you making claims about specific individuals, or a more general argument against saints who were active in the secular world? I can't tell.

[Father David Moser]

If memory serves me, the conflict between David and Absalom was the divine retribution for his sins of adultery and murder. Still, despite those transgressions, God still viewed King David as essentially a man eminently after His (the Lord's) heart.

I think that "divine retribution" might not be the right way to consider this conflict. The events of the reign of David the King were not so much the retribution of God (for David had repented and been forgiven - how could God demand retribution for sins that had been forgiven) as they were the fruit of those seeds planted by David in his sinfulness. He was simply reaping what he had sown. Just as with all of us, even though we are forgiven our sins, we still experience the effects of our sins. If you father a child out of wedlock, you can repent of your sin, but the child is still yours and still there - he doesn't mysteriously "go away". David was a man after God's own heart not because he was perfect, but because he repented of his sins and then patiently and with trust in God bore the consequences of his sins.

Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

I think that "divine retribution" might not be the right way to consider this conflict. The events of the reign of David the King were not so much the retribution of God (for David had repented and been forgiven - how could God demand retribution for sins that had been forgiven) as they were the fruit of those seeds planted by David in his sinfulness.

Yes, I can see the difference. You are right about this, and I glad to receive the correction. Thank you. ~ Ken

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Ken wrote:


I should confess up front that I don't know much about the life of Prince Vladimir, but it appears to me that there is more than meets the eye here, regarding the conflict between him and his son.


I just did a fast search in the one historical book I have on St Vladimir. It mentions that one of his sons Yaroslav, prince of Novgorod, had not paid the appanage tax due from his city. However no action was taken by his father against his son.

It is possible that no action was taken because in fact at this point St Vladimir was on his death bed. But at least as far as I could see though from a brief search through this book I could not find any direct evidence as to what St Valdimir's reaction was to this not paying of taxes- only that Yaroslav did not pay the tax.

In any case even from this brief account at least two questions come up: what was the nature of this tax? and what did it imply to not pay it?

In Kievan Rus there was a crucial distinction between land/property held personally; and that held as part of one's larger responsibility to the state. Here the sources make it clear that the tax not paid by Yaroslav came under his responsibility as an appanage prince (ie the Grand Prince of Kiev appointed the princes of the other cities within Kievan Rus). Withholding of taxes of this type (as in the west at this time also) often implied conscious rebellion which throughout Russia's history had the potential to threaten the stability or even the existence of the state. But in this case nothing of the sort seems to have occurred ( maybe because Yaroslav decided to back off from driving the point home too far or because St Vladimir died) & Yaroslav came to the rule of Kievan Rus through common consent.

Here again then is a warning to soberly search our sources especially as it relates to the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Litster]

Umm... is the idea here that being a soldier or a politician makes it impossible to achieve theosis and union with God? Are you making claims about specific individuals, or a more general argument against saints who were active in the secular world? I can't tell.

My argument is really against specific individuals. We have many saints who held high positions in state and yet still succeeded in leading holy lives - St. Sava of Serbia, for instance, and St. Saebbi, king of the East Saxons of England.

My main point is that we should use exceeding care in who we call saints, and not fall into the error of the West by applying it as basically a "civic honor" for good deeds - such as establishing churches or winning converts. Moreover, the title of "saint" is applied by human beings, who are corruptible and have motives and agendas of their own. In Vladimir's case, even religious sources (such as the Primary Chronicle, written by St. Nestor the Chronicler) have little to say about humility or any other quality; it's not much of a stretch to say that his entire sainthood hinges on the the Christianization of the Rus - an accomplishment which is laudable but does not encompass the Patristic understanding of sanctity, i.e. union with God, divinization, becoming identical with Christ, theoria, etc. God is the one who makes a saint, not the Church.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Litster wrote:


My argument is really against specific individuals. We have many saints who held high positions in state and yet still succeeded in leading holy lives - St. Sava of Serbia, for instance, and St. Saebbi, king of the East Saxons of England.

My main point is that we should use exceeding care in who we call saints, and not fall into the error of the West by applying it as basically a "civic honor" for good deeds - such as establishing churches or winning converts. Moreover, the title of "saint" is applied by human beings, who are corruptible and have motives and agendas of their own. In Vladimir's case, even religious sources (such as the Primary Chronicle, written by St. Nestor the Chronicler) have little to say about humility or any other quality; it's not much of a stretch to say that his entire sainthood hinges on the the Christianization of the Rus - an accomplishment which is laudable but does not encompass the Patristic understanding of sanctity, i.e. union with God, divinization, becoming identical with Christ, theoria, etc. God is the one who makes a saint, not the Church.

I don't usually like to reply so soon in such cases so as not to cause a go around discussion that would accomplish little that is positive.

However there is a serious mistake in the view that "God is the one who makes a saint, not the Church". Of course it is true that the sanctity of sainthood is due to the grace of God. But precisely it is according to our Orthodox understanding that such could only occur through the Church. In other words these two- God and the Church- are not opposed or contradictory forces but rather the way in which God deifies those whom especially have found their life in Him.

Concerning:


In Vladimir's case, even religious sources (such as the Primary Chronicle, written by St. Nestor the Chronicler) have little to say about humility or any other quality; it's not much of a stretch to say that his entire sainthood hinges on the the Christianization of the Rus - an accomplishment which is laudable but does not encompass the Patristic understanding of sanctity, i.e. union with God, divinization, becoming identical with Christ, theoria, etc. God is the one who makes a saint, not the Church.

Actually the Primary sources do precisely make the point of a real change in St Vladimir due to his conversion. In terms of this discussion they also carry this same theme through to his death.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alexander Zhdanov]

"Vladimir put a corner stone in the basis on which during almost thousand years the temple of Russian Orthodoxy was built and Russian national consciousness, Russian statehood and Russian culture grew and became stronger."

"From all miracles that the belief in Christ creates , the most useful for a soul is a reference of a sinner in a righteous person. And as a certificate of such miracle, of personal transformation, stands St Vladimir at the gate of Christian Rus and as if appeals to each Russian: "I was night and have turned in day! Who were you ? Who have you become?"

St Prince Vladimir-The Baptist of Rus
St Nikolay Velimirovich

[Matthew Namee]

My main point is that we should use exceeding care in who we call saints
I would turn this around and say that we should use exceeding care in who we question as saints. I am very much in favor of historical research and accuracy, and I do not support any kind of cover-ups in the Church. When we're in the process of deciding whether to formally glorify someone, or when a person has lived in recent times, then it is much more appropriate to take this kind of careful look at them. But it is very different when you are dealing with long-dead saints like Vladimir or Constantine or Justinian. The details of their lives are largely veiled to us, so many centuries later. And if we do indeed want to revisit the cases for their sanctity, we should not do so arrogantly, thinking that we are capable of ascertaining the full truth. We should respect those who have come before us, who have venerated these people for so many generations.

I don't know much about St. Vladimir, but to those who would criticize comparable saints like Constantine and Justinian, I would recommend two books -- The Christianity of Constantine the Great, written by a non-Orthodox scholar, and Justinian the Great: Emperor and Saint, written by an Orthodox priest and scholar. Both books look at the emperors as historical figures, dispensing with hagiography, but both approach the saints with open minds and find the modern criticism of them to be largely unwarranted. Both books are very relevant to this discussion, I think.

We must not fall into the trap of thinking that our interpretation of history is the only one possible. Only God himself is truly capable of objectivity; the rest of us must aspire to a mere imitation of it. We must certainly treat canonization candidates with rigorous scrutiny, but saints of old cannot be held to the same standard, simply because we lack the sources to do so.

[Anthony]

My understanding is that the Orthodox church never or rarely canonizes saints simply for being war heroes. This understanding comes from the discussion of St Alexander Nevski in Zernov's The Russians and their Church, which made a big impression on me many years ago. There is always something else involved other than military prowess.


Alexander was canonized in 1380. He was included in the list of the Saints not because he was a successful defender of the country and one of its most far-seeing rulers - national heroes have never been honoured in this way by the Russian people. He is a saint because he was a Christian of exceptional integrity and faith. He was able to carry the heavy cross of serving his defeated people, without pride or despair, and he remained firm and humble despite every kind of derision and insult.

The original question in this thread was not, of course, about St Alexander Nevski, but I think this is more generally applicable. If one thinks of the warrior emperors of East Rome (Tzimiskis etc), not one of them was canonized (Justinian was surely not canonized as first and foremost a warrior). Nor were the people who fought for the liberation of Greece, and later the Makedonomakhi, of the 19th-20th centuries. Nor Khmelnitsky and the other military leaders in the struggle against Poland, nor the people who led Russia to victory over Napoleon. (I am open to correction, of course, on any of these.)

What I'm really trying to say is that this confusion (between war heroes and saints) is not one that the Orthodox church characteristically makes. I would prefer to say "never makes".

[Andreas Moran]

It's worth recalling that St Alexander Nevsky became a monk. I have a particular affection for him, and the main icon I have shows him as a monk, not as a commander; I think he would prefer that.

[Kusanagi]

Hello all,

Besides the dubious nature of whether dying while engaged in battle counts as martyrdom, when one looks at the true historical characters beneath all the legend, one finds that true attributes of saintliness - that is, ones who have attained theosis and union with God, is often simply not there. Some of these heroes (for such they are) had distinctly unsaintly traits. Prince Vladimir, for instance, after whom our own Seminary in Crestwood is dedicated, died in 1014 en route to battle against his own son, who had stopped paying him tribute.

So, that's my five cents worth (or a little more) on the matter. I look forward to hearing your input!

I think you missed the point actually. Those princes defended their country not just a simple country but an Orthodox one so they were defending their faith as well. Read St Nikolai Velimirovich's explanation on the battle of Kosovo and you know why St Lazar is a saint. Besides it says in his life that he saw Christ who told him he had 2 choices in life. 1 Attack the Turks at night and have an earthly kingdom or wait till dawn and gain a heavenly kingdom. St Lazar chose the latter and died defending the faith.

Besides read about the lives of the 3 St Stephen the Greats and then hopefully that helps you understand why the ones that fight in the war for their country and faith are count as saints. Also those that died with St Lazar count as martyrs as well.