Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!210.49.20.118.MISMATCH!not-for-mail From: fr_ja...@telstra.easymail.com.au (Fr James.) Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian Subject: Christianity and War. Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:04:09 GMT Message-ID: <3bafa3d0.2825759@news.optusnet.com.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 476 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.63.153 X-Trace: 1001383702 18598 198.142.63.153 Christianity and War-An Orthodox Christians Response. It is indeed appropriate for one to state his own prejudices at the beginning of such a subject. Thus the reader will be able to take this into consideration as the argument unfurls, either for its abject honesty or its utter biasness. Personally I believe in the tenets of pacifism, that is, there is always -wrong- attached to the actions of killing another human created in the image of God and do not support the taking of arms in violent response or protection of ones rights.. Some Foundational Principles First. It is good I believe to define what we mean by the terms utilised. Also it is worthwhile to lay a foundation of theological concepts that affect this issue. Since I am an Orthodox Christian, naturally I state these definitions and concepts from that Christian tradition. War: The pro-active agressive action between Nations, peoples, tribes where an open and declared state is understood between the warring parties. Terrorism: Acts of violence and subterfuge inflicted upon another nation, people, tribe, where there is no declaration of open warfare. Murder: The illegal (as defined by state/country/civil/common law) taking of the life of a human being. Killing: The legal (as defined by state/country/civil/common law) taking of the life of a human being. Sin: The Christian Theologicalconcept that an action, thought or behaviour falls short of the requirement of God's perfection. Does not necessarily require disobedience (although this is the most common) but also can be negligence of an affirmed action. Eternal Salvation: The Christian theological concept that some shall attain to an everlasting perfection in the presence of God. Eternal Damnation: The Christian theological concept that some shall attain to an everlasting damnation seperated from the presence of God. Temporal Punishment: The Christian theological concept that some actions and behaviours receive a temporal punishment (that is punishment here and now) whilst not affecting ones eternal destiny. Sometimes called determinism, chastisement, reaping what we sow, purgatory, etc. A Short History of Christianity regarding War. 30AD-96AD Apostolic Era. During the early period of Christianity's expansion the Apostles did not concern themselves with secular government, state politics or standing for office. They operated largely under political structures where their behaviour was 'illegal' or disobedient to the desires and wishes of the state/society. This can be seen by the arrest and imprisonment of the apostles Peter and Paul as well as the eventual execution of all Apostles bar St John the Beloved. During this time the Apostles did not arm themselves or call their faithful to arms, either to defend themselves or their homes/lands/churches. Even during the intense and public persecution of Christians by the Roman Emperor Nero (circa 66 AD) still no public or written call to arms was declared. It is true to assert that Christians looked for a 'Kingdom not of this world' and certainly believed the persecutions by Nero were a pre-curser to Christ's second coming. There is no record, that I am aware of, coming from this time, that any Christian served in armies or state politics in any way. However, it must be remembered that largely two forms of government existed, the Jewish Temple and political structure which was clearly anti-Christian in its rejection of these new followers of Jesus and pagan Rome, a society based on polytheism and total allegiance to the city-state of Imperial Rome. The Gospels and NT Epistles that were completed during this time present a somewhat conflicting view towards this topic when -all- of the available verses are brought to bear. Indeed, it is not uncommon for Christians from both sides of the debate to be able to quote NT references to support their perspective views. Those who wish to only support their agenda tend to 'forget' about the other verses when either demanding pacifism or war from others. Let the Christian beware and let every man decide in his own heart after deep spiritual reflection. Below are some verses which show how easy it is to support both a pro-active and pacifist approach utilizing the Scriptures: Pacifist: "Love those who hate you, do good to those who spitefully use you."-Jesus Christ. "Love your enemies."-Jesus Christ. "If a man strikes you on the right cheek, turn unto him the other."-Jesus Christ. "Do not repay evil for evil."-Jesus Christ. "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."-Jesus Christ (temporal punishment). "If a man asks for your tunic, give him your shirt as well. If he asks you to walk one mile, walk with him two. Give to those who ask."-Jesus Christ. "Forgive those who trespass against us."-Jesus Christ. "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."-Jesus Christ's prayer. "The kingdom of God is not of this world."-Jesus Christ. "Greater love has no man, that he lays down his life for another."-Jesus Christ. Pro-Active: "Lord, here are two swords"(Peter), "It is enough."-Jesus Christ. "I come not to bring peace but the sword."-Jesus Christ. "Whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword."-Jesus Christ. "Render to God what is God's and render to Caesar what is Caesar's."-Jesus Christ. "For it is unto the state to wield the sword."-St Paul the Apostle. "God has granted unto the state authority."-St Paul the Apostle. "And what should we do?"(armed soldiers to St John the Baptist), "Be content with your pay and do not act illegally???? towards any man." St John the Baptist's response. "A violent man takes the kingdom by force."-Jesus Christ. "An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."-The Law. "Greater love has no man, that he lays down his life for another."-Jesus Christ. I have restricted the above to ten verses from each side to show the availability of numerous verses to support either action or non-action. There are of course many other verses which could be brought to bear for both sides. You will also note some verses can be utilized by both sides. 96AD-200AD. Sub-Apostolic Age. During this era Christianity became entrenched in the 'known world' and had reached as far as Britain to the East, India to the West, Europe to the North and Ethiopia to the South. During this time countries outside of the reach of the Roman armies embraced Christianity, including the Armenians, Kingdom of Ebessa (Abysinia), Kingdom of Cush (todays Sudan). By and large Christians within the Roman Empire still suffered from outbreaks of persecution and were still exempted (by choice and force) from secular government and armed forces service (which had to 'sacrifice' before Roman idols). There exists during this time many records of Roman soldiers converting to the faith of Christ and then refusing to sacrifice. They were immediately put to death to discourage any further conversions. Note that during the times of relatively no persecution Roman soldiers still had to sacrifice to the Roman idols or Emperor. This was a sure test in all places to determine whether any Christians had infiltrated the ranks of the army or local government. Naturally Christians were not drawn to public service in any way. However, in the countries beyond the Roman Empire, newly converted Christian 'kings' and 'Governors' had the very real and very new political situation of how do they reign in a secular society whilst being a Christian convert. This especially affected parts of Britain which constantly rebelled against Roman occupation, as well as the kingdoms of Cush and Abysinia, Armenia. The Armenians proudly declare that they were in fact the first 'Christian secular kingdom' on earth and the conversion of their King is said to have come during the life of the Apostles. 312AD-451AD Christian Empire-The Beginning. The face of the known world was changing during this time. The Pagan Roman empire was crumbling from debauchery within and the invading Goths of the north. Rome itself was to fall during this time and the 'New Rome' to be established in Constantinople, Byzantium (todays Turkey). Christianity had now spread (by peaceful invasion) to all levels of the Roman populace, even to the Royal household. Christian women were prized wives during this time due to their chastity and honesty and it is not uncommon for Christian women to be married to pagan Romans (by force) and the children of these unions often becoming great Christian saints due to the faithfulness of their mothers. One such Christian woman was St Helena, the mother of the future Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine became the Emperor of the Eastern Empire (previously divided) and marched on the Western Empire. Constantine had been brought up by Helena with a Christian ethos and he had many Christians around him. During the march on Rome, it is said that the famous vision in the sky was seen where Constantine saw the sign of the Holy Cross of Christ with the latin words.."In this sign conquor". Subsequently the depiction of the Holy Cross was placed on the shields of the soldiers and the whole army was baptised in a local River. However, some records state that the soldiers were baptized with their right arms sticking out of the water in a statement that they would continue to fight with their sword arms. The truthfulness of these reports are not known. Constantine took Rome and became the Emperor of the whole united Roman Empire. One of the first acts of Constantine was to issue the Edict of Milan (312AD), which declared Christianity legal and that all persecution against Christians was to cease.This was a monumental change in society, for Christians had lived under persecution for three centuries and had suffered ten major outbreaks of barbarism which had decimated their numbers time and time again. The fiercest persecution had been conducted by the Emperor immediately before Constantine, where it is said 80,000 Christians were martyred in Egypt alone. Constantine released all Christian prisoners and personally met with a number of 'confessors' (those tortured for not denying their faith) and offered to them his honour. But with peace from persecution brought resulting 'adaptations' by the bishops of the Churches. For the first time Christian churches could be built openly and publically. Church services could be promoted publically and some pagan temples were converted by consecration to become Churches. Huge numbers of people flocked into the Church which caused some consternation amongst many of the Bishops. It was from this time that the altars of Christian churches were seperated behind a wall (iconostasis) or Communion railings. The idea was that no longer was the church made up of only the 'perfect' in Christ, that is those who openly risked death by being Christian and attending services as was the case prior to Constantine, but now, included the carnal and political converts who saw in a Christian outward appearance a furtherment in secular or political governance. Christian catechesis also dates from this period for those wishing to convert. Whole catechisms were produced to impart to the newly converted the tenets and beliefs and practices of this now Empire approved faith. A backlash movement of monasticism also dates from this period where -some- Christians fled the cities into the wilderness to live private lives in peace and prayer and physical work. Whilst there had always been 'dedicated virgins' in the Christian Church, prior to this time they mainly resided on family estates within suburbia. This monastic movement was to set the stage for the 'new perfect' ones as opposed to those secular Christians who remained in the world/society. Monks and nuns were looked upon as angels and 'living martyrs' for the faith and often railed very harshly against the slothfulness of the city life. Even those who served in war during this time were severly censured by such saints as St Basil, who imposed a three year ban of Holy Communion for those who had served in active legitimate warfare. I have purposely delved deeper into this era than others as it really is the turning point in the history of Christianity regarding war and armed service. Prior to this time by and large Christians had nothing to do with war and armed service, however, after this time they did. Naturally this drew both support and denigration by various peoples and still does today. It is truly said that the monastic communities tried to live as earlier Christians had even during raids by Berbers and later Bedoin raiders. However, the cities were defended by armies and these armies over time expanded the empires of the Christian rulers. St Augustine's literary word, "The City of God." assisted this new belief that secular society could be equated with Christian Kingdom. 451AD-1054AD Christianity in Turmoil. Why have I named this period 'Christianity in Turmoil' rather than extol the virtues of the spread of Christianity into a 'Holy Roman Empire'? For many reasons, but mainly one that relates directly to this topic. For the first time in the history of Christianity, Christians took up armed warfare against other Christians of different race/culture or country. Students of history will note that the times I have selected above commence with the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD and finish at 1054AD the date of the split between the Eastern and Western Christian churches (Constantinople and Rome). After 451AD the complete Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, Indian) were shunned by the Eastern and Western hierarchs and replacement Bishops were instituted in the major cities of the empire where the historical Oriental Orthodox bishops had existed. Naturally the Oriental peoples did not accept the new Bishops and very often riots resulted in the said cities. Civil law was then enforced by the soldiers of Byzantium upon the orientals which included killing, imprisonment, torture and banishment. Note this killing was 'legal' according to the ruling authority (Byzantium). During this time warfare was seen as a legitimate tool of the Christian Empire as can be seen by the rise of Christian Emperors in the West (EG:Charlgemayne). This can be seen in its clearest form in the open wars against the newly developed monotheistic religion of Islam. The prophet of Islam, Mohammed, brought to the earth another major monotheistic religion. It is not the purpose of this topic to debate the truths or other of this new religion, however, it is noted that towards the end of this time period Islam had become a major power in areas formerly under Christian rule. By and large (and due to the fact they did not have standing armies) the Oriental Orthodox countries were quickly overrun. These included Egypt, todays Libya, Palestine, Saudia Arabia, Syria right up to the gates of Constantinople on the Bosphorus. From this time the Oriental Orthodox branch of Christianity would 'disappear' into obscurity on the world stage and would remain so unto the French conquests of Egypt and Palestine under Napoleon a millenium later. But it is also worthwhile to note that those same Orientals would survive the yoke of Islam, without need for any "Inquisitions, reformations, or post-modernisms". 1054AD-1517AD Roman Catholic Dominence. In this era Constantinople fell to the Islamic armies and by and large has remained an Islamic capital to this day. However, prior to the fall of Constantinople, the city was sacked by the Crusaders from the Western Empire. This severly weakened the City and in fact made it somewhat easier for the Islamic invaders who followed soon after. Again we see the horrible situation where both Western and Byzantium forces believed the killing was legal and legitimate and that God was on their side. In many ways some see this as the temporal punishment upon Constantinople due to her armed incursions centuries earlier against the Orientals. However, the power and strength of the Western Roman Empire was also challenged by the actions of a few, in particular, a German monk by the name of Martin Luther who in 1517 nailed his 95 thesis to the Church door at Witteneberg. Christian expansion had reached into countries during this era which had not (apparently) seen a Christian faith. These included South America, Japan and pacific and Asian continents. Whilst it is true to say that British and Spanish interests were at the head of these expansions and that very often conversion was accompanied by the sword of the Conquistadors, again riding on the belief that the sword may be used in legitimate government. 1517AD-1800AD Unreforming Reformation. With respect to war and its legitimate use as a tool by Christians we may say that the Reformation was indeed unreforming. The effects of the Reformation was to plunge the Holy Roman Empire into open warfare with open battles occurring in countries like England, Scotland, Germany, Northern Italy, Northern Ireland, etc. Here again Christian fought Christian, but now Catholic against Protestant. Both sides justified warfare and utilized it to great effect. Catholics persecuted Anglicans, Anglicans persecuted Baptists, whilst the Orthodox were under the yoke of Islam. During this period the pacifist groups where able, fled Europe and England and settled in the New world of America. These groups included small pacifist groups such as the Quakers, Amish and some Baptists who would not fight or go to war under any circumstances. However, it is also noted these people lived under the 'protection of the sword' or gun under both British and later Colonial colonies in the new world of America. 1800AD-1948AD The Sword is Wielded Again. 1948AD-2001AD. Napoleon Bonaparte re-captured much of Islamic territory during this era and by use of the sword. Later British forces took control of these areas also by use of the sword. Finally, after World War Two, self autonomy was granted to many of the countries, or they took it back by armed insurgence or political insurgence (Ghandi). However, whilst the new world (America) was founded on liberty for all men, freedom of religion etc, this new nirvana of peace was to be plunged into a bloody civil war that would see brother fight brother, cousin fight cousin and countryman fight countryman. Christians from both sides wielded the sword against fellow Christian with of course both believing God was on their side. One million men would fall before America was purged by blood for the sins of its slavery and demand for freedom. The two world wars were seen as fights against global tyranny (which they surely were), however, again saw Christian nation and Christians from all sides waging war on their brothers. During this era the pacifist groups were allowed their concientious objections based on religion in many countries, however, were persecuted severly in others (Germany for example). For the first time in history weopons able to destroy whole cities and their populations were developed and used. The differences of the 20th century wars amongst Christians now seemed to be that civilians were openly targeted and used as means of manipulation. Prior to these centuries by and large armies met in fields of battles, but now civilians became 'legitimate' targets. This has now developed into terrorism which no longer even calls up open armies to meet in fields of battle. Todays wars are now fought in undeclared battles, no formal declaration of war by one nation on another, yet destructive bombings (Northern Ireland) and terrorist acts (New York) seem to be the order of the day. Summary. Is the use of force throughout history gloryfing to God? No. Yet is the preservation of the weak and helpless gloryfing to God, Yes. We call those who give their lives for others as heroes, and Jesus said "No greater love than to lay down ones life for another". Often the pacifists are called cowards or those who leech off societies that are protected by armies. The dilemma has existed since Christ and can be argued from the individual side as well as the side of the state. Individuals may forgive, love their enemies and be passive, right up to and including their own death. States may choose the same, but seldom have ever done so. The belief that the state must go on or survive is foremost in the minds of the countries that go to war. It is simplistic to assert the peaceful statements of Christ and ignore the references to state and soldiers in the Bible. Individuals have always had the choice, but never the right to enforce their choice on others. The state takes it as a foregone conclusion that they can enforce its determination upon its population and protect her interests and borders (Eg: conscription). Truly, can there ever be a 'Christian' state, when the founder and head of Christianity, Jesus Christ, Himself, nor His Apostles did not establish such a state? Have we as Christians taken liberties that our Founder and forefathers never dared? What then of defence of the innocent? We who hold pacifist views are at ease when the battles and persecutions are in a far away country on an unknown battlefield. What then, however, when they reach our own country, City, Street, house? It is here that we are truly tested. Who would allow his house to be broken into and his goods stolen? Well Jesus Christ was certainly one and the early Christians for three centuries as well. Who then would not stop violence on another when it is in your power? Even Jesus stayed Peter's sword hand, after Peter cut the ear off of Malchus. In effect Jesus used 'force' and 'verbal persuasion' to stay Peter's hand, yet when that same anger was directed at Him, He graciously accepted the shame. Pacifist positions are well meant but extremely simplistic and today only exist in Nations that are democratically protected by the State wielding the sword. Indeed in this debate over pacificism and pro-action we see perhaps the perfect ideal and the realistic necessity of the age of fallen man, prior to the fullness of the kingdom of God coming. Those pacifist groups can never escape that they are protected today by the law, by Police, army and state. While they may claim some illegitimate moral high ground they do so only from the protection of peace. Few have ever been tested to the extent that their own house and families were ravaged by intruders. It is during these times that their pacifism is truly tested. Finally, the Orthodox have dealt with this most serious moral dilemma in the following way. We leave it up to each individual, state and country to determine its decision, in every case before God, to whom they will at a later time give account. Sometimes it appears that inaction and the allowance of evil to spread unchecked is in itself more evil than the course of action to arrest its growth. The surgeon never means to hurt the patient when he wields the knife and cut the tumor, yet pain and suffering for the patient result, to the greater benefit of the life of the patient. Though the patient scream and not understand the intense pain, the end result is his praising the surgeon in high esteem. Men who have steered their countries through times of war have been remembered as great statesmen and heroes of society, from the times of Joshua, Leonidas and his brave 300, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill. Whilst the great pacifists have earned a place of honour themselves, Jesus Christ our Lord, Ghandi etc. During these times of severe tension when we face the real prospect of a protracted and severe war, both sides (pacifist and pro-active) tend to elevate their champions and decry the other. This can be seen in the negative statements made by minorities (for example the Jehovah's Witnesses) who rail against the states as if they were the devil incarnate. This negativity gladly missing from the Christian pacifist position of Quakers, Amish and various Christians spread amonsgt the entire globe. Let each man determine in his own heart and be ready to give account for his actions before the Eternal God, to which he shall surely have to do. Let each man repent of his actions which are not honouring to God, whether it be the pro-active response of taking life, or the pacifist response in allowing evil to spread unchecked. Both actions have reasons to be repented of and both have reasons to gloryfy God in. Other than that' it is no man's business to tell another how to respond in such a matter as legitimate war or the allowing of it to be persecuted. We pacifists have -no right- in telling America how to respond to the sudden and unprovoked attack against 7,000 of its, and our innocent civilians in this new war of terrorism. If we choose a pacifist position, let us choose it from love of our fellow man and the desire to see them at peace again. If war comes, then so be it. This world has known war and peace since the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our True God. The Kingdom is not of this earth and is not yet here in its completest form. While we live in this body of sin let us repent for our own actions, speak peace and love to the brothers, let justice take its course, temporally and spiritually. In the Last Day, when all shall stand before the Lord in judgement to receive in the flesh whether for the good or the bad, let us be sure that we may give the appropriate account at that time. Unto that Day we look, when there will be no more wars, no more tears in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs Glory, with His Eternal Father and Most Holy Spirit, now and unto the Age of all ages. Amen. Weakest of Christ's servants, Rev. Fr James Scully.