Omitted line in the Liturgy: For victory of armed forces

[Thomas K.]

Howdy all,

I have never heard our priests say the following line of the Great Litany:

"That He may grant them victory over every enemy and adversary, let us pray to the Lord."

(Referring to the Armed Forces in the previous petition)

Yet this line has been in St. John Chrysostom's liturgy for as long as I can remember.

At first I was told that the omission was because we are not currently at war. But we are at war, and even when we're not publicly at war, US troops are fighting missions all over the world that we may not know about (e.g. drug interdictions, various peace-keeping operations, etc.).

If it's morally wrong to ask the Lord to grant our troops "victory over every enemy and adversary," I'd like to understand why that is so.

If it's morally right petition the Lord for this (that's what I believe), I'd be curious to know if there are Orthodox jurisdictions that also delete this line, and their justification for doing so.

(I should in fairness add that the Antiochian Archdiocese does not delete this line, but I've never heard it said in my church, so I'm just curious if this line is said during Liturgies.)

Thank you,
Thomas

[Father David Moser]

Howdy all,

I have never heard our priests say the following line of the Great Litany:

"That He may grant them victory over every enemy and adversary, let us pray to the Lord."

(Referring to the Armed Forces in the previous petition)

Yet this line has been in St. John Chrysostom's liturgy for as long as I can remember.


One thing that you have to recognize is that this particular petition (for the civil authorities and armed forces) is different in each national Church depending on a number of contexts. Is it an "Orthodox nation" with armed forces that are predominately Orthodox - Is this a national Church or a Church in the diaspora - Is it a refugee Church, an immigrant Church or a convert Church - Is the country in question making war against an Orthodox nation - etc. All these are questions that determine the shape of this particular litany. If you were to go back and look at St John's liturgy in its "original form" at this point, you would probably be praying for the Byzantine Emperor, et. al. There is no "standard" form for this particular litany, only that we pray for the civil authority and armed forces. Unfortunately, however, we have many clergy (especially convert clergy) in this country in all jurisdictions who like to do it their own way and so a number of personal political agendas (everything from old world nationalism to pro/anti Americanism to pacificism and so on) sneak into this litany. Even some of the jurisdictional ruling hierarchies insert their own agendas and histories into this petition and then distribute that to their parishes for universal use. You are looking for consistency where there has never been any.

As for the moral question - I think that it is our obligation to pray for our armed forces, as well as those in civil authority, however, we are not obligated to pray for their victory, especially when the war they are "fighting" is not consistent with the life of the Church (for example the demonization of the Serbian people and the Easter Sunday bombing of Serbia by American forces - should we pray for the destruction of an Orthodox Christian society by our own post-Christian nation for political purposes, just because we live here. I think not)

Fr David Moser

[Thomas K.]

One thing that you have to recognize is that this particular petition (for the civil authorities and armed forces) is different in each national Church depending on a number of contexts. Is it an "Orthodox nation" with armed forces that are predominately Orthodox - Is this a national Church or a Church in the diaspora - Is it a refugee Church, an immigrant Church or a convert Church - Is the country in question making war against an Orthodox nation - etc. All these are questions that determine the shape of this particular litany. If you were to go back and look at St John's liturgy in its "original form" at this point, you would probably be praying for the Byzantine Emperor, et. al. There is no "standard" form for this particular litany, only that we pray for the civil authority and armed forces. Unfortunately, however, we have many clergy (especially convert clergy) in this country in all jurisdictions who like to do it their own way and so a number of personal political agendas (everything from old world nationalism to pro/anti Americanism to pacificism and so on) sneak into this litany. Even some of the jurisdictional ruling hierarchies insert their own agendas and histories into this petition and then distribute that to their parishes for universal use. You are looking for consistency where there has never been any.

As for the moral question - I think that it is our obligation to pray for our armed forces, as well as those in civil authority, however, we are not obligated to pray for their victory, especially when the war they are "fighting" is not consistent with the life of the Church (for example the demonization of the Serbian people and the Easter Sunday bombing of Serbia by American forces - should we pray for the destruction of an Orthodox Christian society by our own post-Christian nation for political purposes, just because we live here. I think not)

Fr David Moser

Howdy Fr. David

You noted the circumstance under which we would not be obligated to pray for victory and I agree insofar that I don't believe we should ever pray for "victory" in any military effort which has as its purpose and motivation to inflict innocent suffering or death on people.

To employ a recent example, it is widely acknowledged that the Saddam Hussein regime practiced great evil and inflicted much innocent suffering and death (to include throwing people alive into human shredders, cutting off limbs with no anesthetic, rape rooms, torture rooms, etc.). Would it have been appropriate to pray for our victory over the Hussein regime? And if not, when it would be appropriate to pray for the victory of our armed forces "over all enemies and adversaries?"

The reason I ask is that I am a recent "convert" (well, not quite, but effectively so), and so I don't have the historical knowledge of the Orthodox Church and the countries in which it has flourished over the last 100 to 150 years. I take the Orthodox Faith at face value, and so I take the its Liturgy at face value.

I also believe that fighting evil is one of the greatest things a person can do with his limited time on earth, and therefore fighting evil is one of the greatest things a country can do. Fighting evil also entails the alleviation of innocent suffering at the hands of tyrants. America, with all her faults, has fought evil and tyrants more than any other country in the history of the world, and I live in America. I want our armed forces to win against tyrants like Saddam Hussein. That is why this line in the Liturgy means a lot to me.

Your Blessing
Thomas

[Andreas Moran]

This issue is more complex than appears. The conundrum of 'just and unjust wars' has been debated in western Europe since ancient times (St Augustine) and since the time of Thomas Aquinas. There are two separate aspects to the issue: first, ius bellum (going to war), and secondly ius in bello (rules of conflict). The prayer mentioned in Thomas's posts confuses the two aspects described. It is hard to see how prayer for going to war could distinguish justness or unjustness which in most cases cannot easily be defined. Most people would cite WWII against Fascist Germany and its allies as a just war. St Sergius of Radonezh blessed Prince Dmitri to go to war against the Horde, after being assured that all efforts to find peace had been exhausted. But most recent conflicts are not free from doubt as to their justness: the war in Iraq is one such case, many academic lawyers believing it to be unlawful. Regime change is not a justification for war, otherwise why have not odious regimes such as those in Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe been changed by military intervention? Prayer for such wars as that in Iraq cannot be free from a certain political stance. As to the second aspect - conduct of a war - there are again difficulties. It is clear that laws on the conduct of war have been broken in recent conflicts. (Being British, I think of the unlawful killing of the British reporter Terry Lloyd by American troops in Iraq.) We cannot pray for forces who break the rules of conduct. The 'war' against Serbia was wrong on both aspects: it was unjustified and illegal methods were used.

[Andreas Moran]

P.S. May it not be better just to pray for all that are involved in and affected by armed conflict?

[Ryan]

It seems to me that fighting evil and overthrowing tyrants is not the purpose of any recent war, at least none that I know of, nor is it a basis for anyone's foreign policy. For one thing, it's deeply impractical. (The last government that sought to make war against all tyrants was probably Jacobin France, and we all know how well that went.) How can one seriously claim that the Iraq war was about overthrowing Saddam Hussein, when this very same tyrant had been bolstered by the US a little over a decade before? For every tyrant that is overthrown, you can probably find three others who are supported by the same government. The US has supported nice folks like Suharto, Pinochet, and even Pol Pot after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the Vietnamese army. I therefore don't see much sense in praying for the success of a military that often has an amoral function. This is not to say that I don't enjoy being secure, or that I don't see the many good things that people in the military are doing... but in terms of enemies and adversaries, the US has certainly chosen a very mixed bag of targets (e.g., Serbia).

[Andreas Moran]

It seems to me that fighting evil and overthrowing tyrants is not the purpose of any recent war, at least none that I know of, nor is it a basis for anyone's foreign policy. For one thing, it's deeply impractical. (The last government that sought to make war against all tyrants was probably Jacobin France, and we all know how well that went.) How can one seriously claim that the Iraq war was about overthrowing Saddam Hussein, when this very same tyrant had been bolstered by the US a little over a decade before? For every tyrant that is overthrown, you can probably find three others who are supported by the same government. The US has supported nice folks like Suharto, Pinochet, and even Pol Pot after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the Vietnamese army. I therefore don't see much sense in praying for the success of a military that often has an amoral function. This is not to say that I don't enjoy being secure, or that I don't see the many good things that people in the military are doing... but in terms of enemies and adversaries, the US has certainly chosen a very mixed bag of targets (e.g., Serbia).

This was probably better said by an American than by me, but those outside the US are under no illusions that its pursuit of hegemony in the name of freedom is anything but cynical, hypocritical and entirely self-serving. All English people I know and speak to resent our government's involvement in US adventurism.

[Thomas K.]

Regime change is not a justification for war, otherwise why have not odious regimes such as those in Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe been changed by military intervention?

Let us say that I am a research physician working on a cure for skin cancer. However, I have not found a cure for the more deadly pancreatic cancer. Do you then disparage my work on skin cancer because I haven't yet found a cure for pancreatic cancer?

Of course we cannot confront all evil regimes. This not likely to be consistent with American national security interests, and clearly the United States and her allies are limited in military power and more importantly, political will.

However, does it then follow that because we cannot confront every evil regime that we should confront no evil regimes?

I am under no illusions that the United States - or other nations that fight evil such as Israel and Great Britain - are morally perfect. I fully acknowledge that some of the military efforts the United States has engaged in have been morally ambiguous. However, as a Christian I strongly support toppling cruel regimes like Saddam's, Hitler's, Pol Pot's et. al. because I don't think it is possible as Christians to preserve our personal holiness by allowing the world's great evils to go unchallenged and thus, exponentially increasing innocent human suffering and death. We have a moral obligation to alleviate innocent suffering where we can, while recognizing that unfortunately, we cannot effectively alleviate it everywhere.


But most recent conflicts are not free from doubt as to their justness: the war in Iraq is one such case, many academic lawyers believing it to be unlawful.

I find it odd that we would employ as our standard of justness the views of academic lawyers. A tyranny arises under which people are being brutally tortured and murdered as I describe in my previous post, and the best that we can do is appeal to "academic lawyers" to decide for us whether this evil should be stopped? An attorney proclaims that we might be at fault for deposing a man who throws people alive into shredding machines, and we are cowed by that? God forbid.


How can one seriously claim that the Iraq war was about overthrowing Saddam Hussein, when this very same tyrant had been bolstered by the US a little over a decade before?

I will gladly answer this question if you can explain to me why the United States and Britain were allies with Josef Stalin, given the Stalinist purges of the 1930's in which millions were murdered.

Anyway, if I may let me go back to my original purpose in this post. I did not wish to digress into a political discussion regarding the justification for invading Iraq. I can ofter an array of arguments and I'm sure others can respond with a plethora of counter arguments.

I wanted to know whether the "grant our armed forces victory over every enemy and adversary" line should be said in the Liturgy.
In other words, if the answer is no and the line should not be said, does it imply that we desire our armed forces' defeat by our enemies and adversaries? Given the nature of the regimes today that hate the United States, why would we ever desire such a thing?

On the other hand, if the answer is yes, then why all of the moral hand-wringing of the last few posts?

In Christ
Thomas K.

[Owen Jones]

I don't think America bashing serves much purpose in this forum. Politics is about power; it is also the art of the possible that will never conform to ideal Christian standards. If someone wants a morally pure politics, they will be waiting a long time. Constantine was a murderer and is also a saint. There was a time when Christians understood this issue.

[Andreas Moran]

Originally Posted by Andreas Moran
How can one seriously claim that the Iraq war was about overthrowing Saddam Hussein, when this very same tyrant had been bolstered by the US a little over a decade before?

Not from one of my posts.


I find it odd that we would employ as our standard of justness the views of academic lawyers. A tyranny arises under which people are being brutally tortured and murdered as I describe in my previous post, and the best that we can do is appeal to "academic lawyers" to decide for us whether this evil should be stopped? An attorney proclaims that we might be at fault for deposing a man who throws people alive into shredding machines, and we are cowed by that? God forbid.

God forbid that we abandon law and let the most powerful act unlawfully with impunity. Is that your stance? As Owen rightly says, this is not a political forum but the US has a history of supporting dictators and tyrants and overthrowing constitutionally elected governments. Not to mention its own atrocities and cruel injustices against its own people. In the context of Orthodoxy, don't forget the support the US gave for the Revolution in Russia. Amongst other things, it was Woodrow Wilson who personally authorised giving Trotsky an American passport to enable him to go from New York (with $10,000 from Wall Street) to St Petersburg to ignite the Bolshevik Revolution. Russians don't forget this.

[Owen Jones]

Russians don't forget anything. They have stored up a thousand years of fears and resentments.

[Andreas Moran]

Owen Jones: Russians don't forget anything. They have stored up a thousand years of fears and resentments

And with very good reason.

[Owen Jones]

Back to the original question, I think you deserve a straightforward answer from your priest. Clearly the answer you got was disingenuous at best. If he believes it is only applicable in Orthodox countries(despite the fact that no such country exists anymore) then he ought to say so. I'll have to take a closer look at next liturgy and report back on what my parish does.

[Ryan]

I read that St. Nicholas of Japan, during the Russo-Japanese war, would not participate in any services, because he would be obligated to pray for the victory of Japan over his homeland. He did, however, encourage his flock to pray for the emperor and the army. This is an interesting dilemma but I wonder if this is really a valid reason not to participate in the Divine Liturgy, which transcends national concerns. This is not to put down St. Nicholas in any way- such a difficult situation doesn't lend itself to easy answers.

[Isaac Crabtree]

I think we can chalk up its inclusion or exclusion to local freedom-- similar to the inclusion or exclusion of the litany for the Catechumens. I think a good policy for Americans might be to not include it unless the country is involved in its own direct defense, its own self-preservation, rather than simply empire-building or conflicts over which there could be serious difference of opinion from Christians.

[Father David Moser]

I think we can chalk up its inclusion or exclusion to local freedom-- similar to the inclusion or exclusion of the litany for the Catechumens.

There is no "local freedom" to exclude the litany for the catechumens. This is a liturgical aberration that has arisen in some parishes in the US - but it is not a generally recognized practice.

As for the litany for the government and armed forces - why would one not want to pray for those in authority over us (as the Apostle Paul instructed us to do). That litany, in whatever form it takes, is also "not optional".

Fr David Moser

[Isaac Crabtree]

Fr. David, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. From what I understand, both the Ecumenical Throne and the holy Synod of the Church of Greece have decided no longer to include the litany for the catechumens. This isn't a problem unless we believe that Chrysostom's Liturgy came down from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets, but I'm afraid that doesn't correspond much to reality. Also, I am at a loss, even with my three years of law school, to find the clause in the Constitution that gives the U.S. armed forces authority over us.

[Father David Moser]

Also, I am at a loss, even with my three years of law school, to find the clause in the Constitution that gives the U.S. armed forces authority over us.

The armed forces are a part of the civil authority which are given a specific task of repelling enemies and defending our society against those who would destroy it. We will leave aside for the moment that the purpose of the civil society is to create a favorable environment for one to be able to work out their salvation (since we can argue both for and against that as the reality in many nations including the US). The requirement is that we pray for the civil authority, and the armed forces are a part of that civil authority. Even if they are not actively engaged in some conflict, the very existence of the armed forces has an effect on the designs of those who would overthrow or destroy our society. I think that praying for those who are tasked with such a great responsibility is a good thing, no?

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

Fr. David, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. From what I understand, both the Ecumenical Throne and the holy Synod of the Church of Greece have decided no longer to include the litany for the catechumens. This isn't a problem unless we believe that Chrysostom's Liturgy came down from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets, but I'm afraid that doesn't correspond much to reality. Also, I am at a loss, even with my three years of law school, to find the clause in the Constitution that gives the U.S. armed forces authority over us.

The armed forces are an instrument of the government. In the USA, under Posse Commitatus, they are not allowed to have "authority" over the civil population, and a civilian will always have ultimate responsibility over the armed forces, but they are still part of the government, the part that stands ready to put their lives on the line in order that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms and rights granted by the Constitution. Why would it be wrong to pray for them?

Irrespective of the litany of the catechumens, which is probably left out or left in as the bishop directs, the priest is still not given the liberty to omit or add at his whim.

Herman the veteran Pooh

[Isaac Crabtree]

I agree with both Herman and Fr. David. Herman and Fr. David, please note that I never said it was wrong to pray for them. What I disagree with is that, at least in America, we don't pray for the armed forces because they have authority over us-- they don't-- the military qua military is not a branch of lawful government, it is a tool of the federal executive branch. As such it serves a very specific function (or at least should). There are plenty of places where the military is nearly the only branch of government, just not here. We SHOULD pray for them regardless of this, but I still think we can choose whether or not to pray for their victory, precisely because the reason we should be praying for them is commensurate with our belief that they are fighting justly and for justice (particularly in defense of our civil society), NOT simply because they are an "authority" over our citizens-- they aren't, in any way that does justice to that word.

[Isaac Crabtree]

And I should also say, Herman, that this was what I meant by "local freedom"-- not simply the whims of a priest but the deliberate decision of a diocese or a synod.

[Thomas K.]

I posted a final comment here (http://tpkatsa.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/victory-over-every-enemy-and-adversary/) instead of on the board, since I wasn't sure if I was really on-topic or not. In any case, thanks everyone for your responses. I'm comfortable closing this thread if no one else has any comments.

Here is the text of the above article (added by moderator)



The Victory Prayer

August 10, 2009 in Foreign Policy, Morality, Orthodoxy, Politics, Prayer, Theology, War

The following is a comment to a thread (which I started a while back but has not seen much activity) on monachos.net regarding the liturgical prayer “…that He may grant them victory over every enemy and adversary.” Some Orthodox churches do not include this line in the Great Litany. The thread is a discussion of the appropriateness of that prayer.

We SHOULD pray for them regardless of this, but I still think we can choose whether or not to pray for their victory, precisely because the reason we should be praying for them is commensurate with our belief that they are fighting justly and for justice.

In any case I wanted to make a quick comment on this, because in the cases where we would choose not to pray for their victory, it reminds me of the old argument, “I support the troops but I don’t support their mission.” Just replace “support” with “pray for” and you get the idea. Either way, I don’t think that the argument is tenable.

To use a secular analogy, I support the Yankees baseball team but I don’t want them to win the ballgame. This is an odd formulation to me.

I’ve been reading Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy and I am deeply moved by both his moral clarity and his insistence that either we as free peoples confront evil or we appease evil; there is no middle ground. Sharansky argues that you cannot make a deal with the Devil, nor with dictators. Sooner or later, the Devil and his dictators will turn around on you.

One may not agree with the mission of the troops from a political standpoint but that does not mean that their missions are unjust. From World War II to Vietnam to the Gulf War, Bosnia, the invasion of Iraq, the war against the Afghan Taliban – some of the most repressive thugs on earth – I cannot think of an example where the American/Allied military mission has been fundamentally unjust. While it is true that individuals make mistakes – sometimes horrific and tragic ones – during wartime, that in and of itself does not diminish the justice of the mission, which has usually been to confront the tyrant with the resulting liberation of those upon whom the tyrant’s jackboot falls.

According to Sharansky, democracies do not generally wage unjust wars, since war is a measure to be avoided at all costs, and as Sharansky says, the democratic government is accountable to its electorate. While I am not yet convinced that all peoples’ desire for freedom trumps their hatred and prejudices (the prime example being the Palestinians voting to elect Hamas, a terror organization, in 2005), Sharansky makes a compelling case that freed from such hatred and prejudice, all peoples do desire freedom – to live in a free society, not a “fear” society as he calls non-democratic governments.

For these reasons, I support the Liturgical prayer, “…that He may grant them victory over every enemy and adversary.” By virtue of the fact that we are a free people, the mission of our armed forces is on balance a just cause, wherever they may be and whatever their mission. I hasten to add that yes, individual soldiers and officers may on rare occasion act shamefully, but this does not undermine the fact that America – and in particular the US military – has fought evil more than any other country in the history of the world. And because of this, I do pray and will continue to pray that He grant our armed forces a swift victory, over every enemy and adversary. An enemy or adversary of the United States is almost always an enemy of freedom, and the enemies of freedom deserve no less.

[Jeremy Troy]

I've noticed some inconsistency on this petition, as well. Our parish doesn't have a permanent deacon, but sometimes will 'borrow' one or another of the deacons from a larger local parish. I've noticed that some of the deacons always say "For our civil authorities and armed forces, let us pray to the Lord," which is what is printed in our service books. Other deacons always say "For our civil authorities and armed forces in defense of freedom and justice everywhere, let us pray to the Lord." Clearly, these two versions of the petition have different implications. I suppose it just reflects the personal views of the person saying the petition. Of course, personal views are not supposed to play a part in the Divine Liturgy, but unfortunately it's inevitable that they'll slip in here and there.

In XC,
Jeremy

[Michael Bauman]

As for the moral question - I think that it is our obligation to pray for our armed forces, as well as those in civil authority, however, we are not obligated to pray for their victory, especially when the war they are "fighting" is not consistent with the life of the Church (for example the demonization of the Serbian people and the Easter Sunday bombing of Serbia by American forces - should we pray for the destruction of an Orthodox Christian society by our own post-Christian nation for political purposes, just because we live here. I think not)

Fr David Moser

Father, thank you for your balanced and thoughtful response. I'd like to add one other consideration: it is not just the physical enemy or adversary which soldiers face, but the demons as well. Demonic influence can lead to such things as Abu Graib, My Lai and other lesser known situations that go beyond even what is allowed in warfare from a patristic sense. Perhaps our prayers will strengthen soldiers with a Christian conscience (Orthodox or not) to intervene to stop such excesses or to refuse immoral orders (even if technically legal). Given that with or without victory Orthodox soldiers will die and destruction will occur that is not preventable, is it not better to pray with the spiritual victory of soldiers over their own passions and the passions of their commanders than to omit the line altogether?

[Jeremy Troy]

Although my thoughts on this topic are of little importance, I have to disagree with Thomas' argument above. I want every person in the world to be safe, and so I pray for those who are not safe. People who are in the armed forces are at war, and so they are not safe. Because of that, I pray for them. This does not in any way imply that I approve of the war(s) they are fighting. It is simply false that "For our civil authorities and armed forces, let us pray to the Lord," implies "For our civil authorities and armed forces in defense of freedom and justice everywhere, let us pray to the Lord." The further question of whether the wars waged by the United States/Allied Forces have been 'just' isn't relevant; the question is simply whether the two versions of the petition have the same meaning. They seem not to.

If I'm mistaken or have overstated this, forgive me.
Jeremy

[Andreas Moran]

I agree with Jeremy Troy's view. To add the phrase, 'in defence of freedom and justice everywhere' is inappropriate because it is political and subjective, and nothing to do with the Orthodox Christian faith. It reminds of the slogans of political causes such as 'Liberty Equality Fraternity'. Such are the currency of movements which seek to bring about earthly, not Christian ideas of freedom, justice, and so on. In France in 1789 and Russia in 1917, such movements led to the sort of consequences of which we know.

[Thomas K.]

"freedom and justice everywhere is political and subjective"

Sorry, I don't regard freedom (or justice) as "political and subjective," nor subject to the whim of "personal views." Either you live under the thug's jackboot or you are not. What person, regardless of his politics, would not want to live in a society where he enjoys our fundamental freedoms - including the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience - and in which the court system renders a just verdict?

As John F. Kennedy eloquently said in his first inaugural address, these are rights granted not by the generosity of the state, but by the hand of God. (e.g. a just i.e. "righteous" court is commanded in Leviticus 19:15). Freedom and justice are not up for political or personal grabs.

There is an enormous difference between American values "Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, In God we trust (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH3yng4k)," and French values, "Equality, Liberty, Fraternity." Yes, that's right: equality before liberty. The French revolution largely failed, and the American experiment succeeded, because the French put equality before liberty, whereas our Founders put liberty before everything else except Life (Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...).

Sorry if somewhat off-topic, but I felt it was important to respond to this. By the way, I should in fairness add that at our church we have a new Deacon and he does say the "Victory Prayer" during the Great Litany, and our Priest has always said, "For our armed forces in defense of peace and freedom everywhere, let us pray to the Lord" immediately following the great entrance (even though he does not say the "Victory Prayer" for whatever reason). So I'm happy that they do that and I join them fully in these prayers.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sorry but what you are stating is a whimsical "personal view". Define "freedom" and define "justice". A slave can be "free" in Christ. A "free" man can certainly be a total slave to sin. So it can, indeed be political and very subjective, even if you want to claim they are absolute (that being a very subjective and political statement in its own right).

"Thug's jackboot" is a very colorful expression, but it really doesn't mean anything. There are some who loudly claim that people in the US are "living under the jackboot of a thug" right now. No, I don't agree with them, they are expressing a "personal view". There are many subtle layers to thuggery, really.

"Equality, Liberty, Fraternity" is not a theology, it is a slogan, a political slogan that justified mass murder and a lot of thuggery and injustice in the French Revolution if you study your history. We are not into slogans, we are into Truth, which is Christ. Truth is not a slogan, or a philosophy, nor a set of "beliefs", nor a concept, nor a political system. It is a relationship with Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Freedom, that is, true freedom in Christ, can be experienced in a prison cell and under a slaver's whip, or even under a thug's jackboot. Not that I would wish any of these things on anybody, but we deal in Truth and in Christ, not in imposing one political system over another, nor in confusing politics with theology.

Herman the not politically-correct Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Politics is how people deal with each other. We certainly should allow our theology to influence our personal politics, but we must never allow our politics to influence our theology.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Thomas K.]

"Sorry but what you are stating is a whimsical "personal view". Define "freedom" and define "justice". A slave can be "free" in Christ."

"Slavery" in Christ is voluntary. I can choose to be Christ's slave or I can choose to be my own master. However, true slavery, or living under the thug of the jackboot, is not voluntary. That is the crucial difference.

Do you agree with the statement: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?"

There are some who loudly claim that people in the US are "living under the jackboot of a thug" right now.

Those who claim this do themselves a grave disservice: they do not know what a true thug is, nor do they understand (or perhaps acknowledge) real evil.

[Jeremy Troy]

Although freedom and justice themselves are certainly not merely political or subjective, the claim that the armed forces of a particular nation are pursuing these goals certainly is. It would be impossible for an Orthodox Christian in Iraq circa 1990 to claim that the armed forces of his nation were acting in pursuit of freedom and justice. Thus, the claim is subjective, since it cannot be made by all Orthodox Christians. For that reason, it destroys the universality of the Divine Liturgy. Aside from this, it is still simply a liturgical innovation which changes the meaning of the petition in question.

Forgive me if I am being argumentative about this.

Jeremy

[Michael Bauman]

I think there is a mental limitation at work here that ascribes the phrase "...victory over all enemies and adversaries..." to simply killing the opposition forces. However, in war there are many enemies and adversaries including the personal passions of the combatants and the activity of the demons. Should we leave our soldiers bereft of our prayerful support that they are able to gain victory over those enemies?

[Ryan]

I think there is a mental limitation at work here that ascribes the phrase "...victory over all enemies and adversaries..." to simply killing the opposition forces. However, in war there are many enemies and adversaries including the personal passions of the combatants and the activity of the demons.

That's true of civilians too, so why restrict the petition to soldiers?

[Paul Fowler]

Although freedom and justice themselves are certainly not merely political or subjective, the claim that the armed forces of a particular nation are pursuing these goals certainly is. It would be impossible for an Orthodox Christian in Iraq circa 1990 to claim that the armed forces of his nation were acting in pursuit of freedom and justice. Thus, the claim is subjective, since it cannot be made by all Orthodox Christians. For that reason, it destroys the universality of the Divine Liturgy. Aside from this, it is still simply a liturgical innovation which changes the meaning of the petition in question.

Forgive me if I am being argumentative about this.

Jeremy


The Assyrian Church of the East lived in peace under Saddam Hussein. Since the invasion by British and American troops and their allies, the Church has been decimated because fundamentalist Muslim groups regard them as Western allies because they are Christian. Given the choice, I suspect Christians of any hue would prefer life under Saddam than under the present regime, at least they lived in peace at that time. There is big difference, I suggest, between exporting Western democracy by one means or another and promoting the peace of the Church. The two are not necessarily synonomous

Paul

[Father David Moser]

The Assyrian Church of the East lived in peace under Saddam Hussein. Since the invasion by British and American troops and their allies, the Church has been decimated...

What Paul says here is very true. We have one family in our parish that fled Armenia in the last generation because of the Moslem/Christian strife. They fled to Iraq where they lived in peace under Saddam. Now that the armed forces of Iraq, under whose protection the Christians were able to live in peace and safety, have been defeated by the armed forces of the "coalition of the willing", the Christians no longer have peace but are persecuted and hunted down. The refugees have become refugees again, fleeing from the destruction wrought by the defeat of the Iraqi army and the overthrow of the rightful Iraqi government.

"Freedom and justice" are not what we pray for when we pray for the civil authority and armed forces, but rather that under their protection we might live in peace and stability. Give me peace and stability in which to work out my salvation over freedom and justice every time.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Bauman]

We pray for the soldiers, not the government, the people, not the institution or the politics. Dropping the petition is nothing more than a political statement of personal belief--does that have a place in the Divine Liturgy? To take it a bit from academic hypothosis read here: http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2010/July/Colonel_Robert_Howard_of_Waco_Greatest_American_He ro.aspx

[Jeremy Troy]

The Assyrian Church of the East lived in peace under Saddam Hussein. Since the invasion by British and American troops and their allies, the Church has been decimated because fundamentalist Muslim groups regard them as Western allies because they are Christian. Given the choice, I suspect Christians of any hue would prefer life under Saddam than under the present regime, at least they lived in peace at that time. There is big difference, I suggest, between exporting Western democracy by one means or another and promoting the peace of the Church. The two are not necessarily synonomous

Paul

Paul,

I don't see how this is pertinent to the question at hand. I raised the example of Orthodox Christians in Iraq during the Gulf War to show that adding "in defense of freedom and justice everywhere" to the petition about the armed forces is unjustified because it is not always the case that a particular nation's armed forces are acting in defense of freedom and justice. We might just as easily talk about Orthodox Christians in Germany during the Holocaust. Whether the Church is in a better position now than it was before the American occupancy began does not really change the point.


We pray for the soldiers, not the government, the people, not the institution or the politics. Dropping the petition is nothing more than a political statement of personal belief--does that have a place in the Divine Liturgy? To take it a bit from academic hypothosis read here: http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2010/July/Colonel_Robert_Howard_of_Waco_Greatest_American_He ro.aspx

Michael,

We aren't talking about dropping the petition by any means. We are talking about the additions of "in defense of freedom and justice everywhere" or "granting them victory over all their enemies" which are sometimes made by certain clergy.

Jeremy

[Paul Fowler]

Paul,

I don't see how this is pertinent to the question at hand. I raised the example of Orthodox Christians in Iraq during the Gulf War to show that adding "in defense of freedom and justice everywhere" to the petition about the armed forces is unjustified because it is not always the case that a particular nation's armed forces are acting in defense of freedom and justice. We might just as easily talk about Orthodox Christians in Germany during the Holocaust. Whether the Church is in a better position now than it was before the American occupancy began does not really change the point.





Jeremy

I think it is very pertinent. What we pray for is the peace of the Church. The Church in Iraq clearly had peace when Saddam was in charge, under the coalition it doesnt, therefore from a Christian point of view, the Occupation of Iraq by Coalition Forces is a bad thing. The fact that the two original leaders-Bush and Blair-both were open about their "faith" makes it even worse. To pray that the Armed Forces of the country I am a citizen of has a victory in a war that disturbs the Peace of the Church cannot be reconciled with the Prayer in the Great Litany when we (or the Deacon) asks "For the peace of the whole world, for the stability of the Churches of God and for the union of all".

In our Morning Prayers we ask the Lord to be mindful of "all civil authorities and our armed forces". perhaps leaving it at that is best. God after all knows the full facts and knows what is best

Paul

[Jeremy Troy]

Paul,

It seems that we are in agreement, in that case.

In Christ,
Jeremy

[Herman Blaydoe]

"Sorry but what you are stating is a whimsical "personal view". Define "freedom" and define "justice". A slave can be "free" in Christ."

"Slavery" in Christ is voluntary. I can choose to be Christ's slave or I can choose to be my own master. However, true slavery, or living under the thug of the jackboot, is not voluntary. That is the crucial difference.

Do you agree with the statement: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?"

Yep, in one sense, I do. Some Americans in support of the American Revolution, used terrorist tactics. I don't condone such things but our history books do most emphatically refer to them as "freedom fighters". The winners get to decide who gets called what, generally speaking. But trust me, there was some heavy-duty thuggery on both sides. Do the ends justify the means?



There are some who loudly claim that people in the US are "living under the jackboot of a thug" right now.

Those who claim this do themselves a grave disservice: they do not know what a true thug is, nor do they understand (or perhaps acknowledge) real evil.

Well that is YOUR opinion, and what makes your opinion so much more authoritative than their's? Again there are many levels to thuggery, it is not a binary thing and people who say otherwise perhaps do not understand (or perhaps acknowledge) real thuggery.

Little thoughts from a bear of little brain, feel free to ignore them if they cause consternation or contradict your concept of reality.

Herman the virtual Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Oh and, is it only evil if the thugs are actually wearing jackboots? What about if they are wearing loafers?

Just askin'

Herman the curious Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Ouch, sorry, but the following finally just leaped out at me and begs some sort of response:


According to Sharansky, democracies do not generally wage unjust wars, since war is a measure to be avoided at all costs, and as Sharansky says, the democratic government is accountable to its electorate. While I am not yet convinced that all peoples’ desire for freedom trumps their hatred and prejudices (the prime example being the Palestinians voting to elect Hamas, a terror organization, in 2005), Sharansky makes a compelling case that freed from such hatred and prejudice, all peoples do desire freedom – to live in a free society, not a “fear” society as he calls non-democratic governments.

Is this Sharansky person at all familiar with history? How about the wars against the First Nation peoples (American Indians)? Spanish-American war anyone ("What this country needs is a war–-any little war will do." - Theodore Roosevelt)? And don't get me started on the the American suppression of the Filipino Insurrection, and I think they even wore jackboots or at least very jackbootish footwear. The USA was a "full-up" democracy in all those cases. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a civil servant, directly supporting the acquisition and maintenance of the tools our warfighters need to do their jobs. Let's be about truth and not jingoisms.

Herman the civil Pooh

[Paul Cowan]

jingoisms

noun
Date: 1878
: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy