Christianity and War.
Fr James.
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.
Theo
"Fr James." wrote
> Terrorism: Acts of violence and subterfuge inflicted upon another
> nation, people, tribe, where there is no declaration of open warfare.
So the US intervention in Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, Columbia, etc, etc were
all acts of terrorism.
Reap as ye sow?
> 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.
I have some difficulties with these two definitions. If you accept the State
definition, then the Germans did not _murder_ any Jews or other "subhumans"
as defined by the State. I can't accept that.
Cheers
Theo
Fr James.
wrote:
>
>"Fr James." wrote
>
>> Terrorism: Acts of violence and subterfuge inflicted upon another
>> nation, people, tribe, where there is no declaration of open warfare.
>
>So the US intervention in Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, Columbia, etc, etc were
>all acts of terrorism.
>
>Reap as ye sow?
As they say let the cards fall where they may.
>
>> 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.
>
>I have some difficulties with these two definitions. If you accept the State
>definition, then the Germans did not _murder_ any Jews or other "subhumans"
>as defined by the State. I can't accept that.
>
>Cheers
>
>Theo
A valid point which establishes -why- wars exist-to eradicate unjust
regimes who treat human life as if it were nothing. Very similar to
the current situation with the Taliban.
The unfortunate thing is your example can also be applied to what we
define as 'legal executions', still state allowed killing. In a couple
of generations hence, these may be judged also as barbarism.
Unfortunately, the example you gave would not create a charge of
murder in Germany in 1942, however, killing a German Officer in
similar circumstances would have.
Peace and grace.
Fr James.
>
>
Theo
"Fr James." wrote
> A valid point which establishes -why- wars exist-to eradicate unjust
> regimes who treat human life as if it were nothing. Very similar to
> the current situation with the Taliban.
So if we perceive that a regime is unjust we should declare war and liberate
the oppressed? I love that word "eradicate". :-)
When do we set off for Palestine, Myanmar, Chile, the USA, Australia? I'm
sure some people will perceive injustice in any government. I'm sure glad
the US of A didn't declare war on us when our leaders were oppressing the
wharfies a couple of years ago. :-)
I can't see any war as being just. This is probably a good time to invest in
Du Pont shares. Do they still make Napalm?
Cheers
Theo
Douglas Cox
fr_j...@telstra.easymail.com.au (Fr James.) wrote:
>Christianity and War-An Orthodox Christians Response.
<snip>
A timely study. I found it appropriate to include a link to your post
in my article "The Woman of Revelation 12" at:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/rev12.html
Douglas Cox
Fr James.
Thank you for your words and I too say a timely post. I went to your
site above and will let readers know that the new post I have just
sent on "Christianity and the Eschaton" refers to the exact 'way' you
have interpreted the Biblical references. You will note that my post
refers to many of the passages you have stated refer to one thing and
I have shown that they may in fact refer to any other number of
matters. Your first reference to the woman clothed with the sun, may
be the Church as you have stated. It may also be St Mary. :-) (or
both).
Peace and grace to you.
Fr James