Orthodox Christianity & Warfare
Part 1: Contra Pacifism
Geopolitics and war have long been debated in the Western world as products of either pragmatic necessity, sin, an absence of peace, or simple righteous events; ‘Just Wars’ or Crusades blessed by the Pope. Yet none of these examples have the full truth regarding the ancient, and most accurate attitude towards War in them. The information presented in these essays will attempt to illuminate the reader on how the Orthodox Christian Church, which calls itself the ‘Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’, approached war, geopolitical tensions and the novel false-ideology of pacifism.
It seems appropriate to begin with a quote from an esteemed Orthodox bishop, who said: “the Lord allows military disaster to happen precisely when the people remain deaf to moral, higher calls”, and this is evidenced throughout history. Most prominent of course is the illustration of the Second World War, or the Great Patriotic War, in which the Soviet Russians defended themselves and overcame Nazi Germany. When one looks at the origins of the war, specifically the moral conditions of the USSR in the 20 years leading up to the conflict, what will they find? Would it be the existence of a virtuous peace? Would it be a prayerful and hopeful existence? No, and I take it most educated readers can guess what insanities were taking place in the years prior to Hitler’s hubristic invasion.
And thus the Soviet Union resorted to defend itself against the scourge of God, the Third Reich. This general Orthodox Christian viewpoint is undisputed, and evidence can be glimpsed in the writings of St Seraphim Sobolev of Sofia, St Luke of Crimea, and many other monastics both in or around the Soviet Union. However, not all is simple in warfare, as in the process of defending one’s nation-state the Orthodox Christian must inevitably face the next theoretical ‘challenger’ to his worldview, the spectre of pacifism.
The primary argument of so-called Christian self-defence deniers, generally referred to as pacifists, originates from a false reading of Scripture, in particular, Chapter 5 of Matthew’s Gospel which brings us the following words of Christ:
“You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. ' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”
A basic, uneducated reading of the verse might bring one to believe that it is better to never answer an offense with either justice of vengeance. This certainly is reflected in the false pacifist idea that society as a whole need resort to any mechanisms for the vindication of crime, evil and wrongdoing.
In truth the Christian pacifist rips the verses from Matthew’s Gospel and reads them as a standalone rule, out of context of God’s New Testament. The correct reading, as is presented by Orthodox Christian saints of past centuries, is understood only in the context of the entire New Testament as well as Tradition. Exegesis of that particular passage clearly states that turning one’s cheek is a personal and individual, free willed, act of humility. St John Chrysostom states that revenge for a strike, returning a personal blow, often times only exacerbates the conflict - it neither benefits the striker, nor the victim of the strike. God loving both the victim and the perpetrator, allows for an opportunity between the two parties to reconcile, the former through humble endurance, and the latter through shameful realization. St John does not claim that this is ‘easy’, but it is the best way for personal conflicts to be resolved.
Michael, the Prince of Tver, is a prime example of a ruler who had that exact ‘choice’ to not return the blow and seek personal vengeance. At the beginning of the 14th century, he actively participated in civil wars against his brothers and cousins, during the tumultuous ‘Mongol Yoke’ period of Russia’s history. There came a moment in the conflict, amidst the diplomacy and warfare, when Michael had the distinct personal choice to submit himself for judgement to the Mongol Khan himself. This choice was not easy, as Michael knew the Khan was not fond of him. Therefore he clearly understood that through a personal submission into the hands of his accusers, a humbling of his individual ambitions as one of the most powerful rulers in the Russian lands, he would inevitably meet his wordily end. Michael confessed his sins and travelled to the capital of the Mongols, from where he would not return alive. St Michael turned the other cheek, he took it upon himself not to return the blow, not to chase up personal insults or throw accusations against his family, he quietly took a biased judgement against himself. In return, his city and family were not harmed and the Russian civil wars of the early 1300s soon came to an end. Personal acts of vengeance did not end civil strife, Christian perseverance and piety did.
After the pacifist ceases to throw around verses out of context and without proper exegesis, the Orthodox Christian will of course have the opportunity to bring up the wise words of Romans 13: 1-3, in which the pious Apostle Paul tells his followers that authorities have the right to both limit and punish evil. The other obvious instance of collective, ‘civilizational’, restraining of evil is again told to us by Apostle Paul, perhaps in a more esoteric fashion in the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, chapter 2 verse 6:
“And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.”
The Great saints of the past through clairvoyant and prophetic exegesis explained that Apostle Paul in this verse was speaking about ‘The Roman State’, which is restraining evil on a large scale, the sort of evil that will bring about the reign of the Antichrist. The main point we will discuss in regards to this verse from Thessalonians, is that ‘restraining’ something from occurring, by the power, laws and authority of the Roman state, is offensive to pacifists as they view power and forceful deterrence as an expression of violence. Naturally for the first two centuries of the Orthodox Church this revelation would have come as a large surprise, given that even the most upstanding of Roman emperors such as Trajan and Marcus Aurelius persecuted Christians. On that same point, Marcus Aurelius’ persecution of Christians ended around the 14th year of his reign when during a war with barbarian tribes his army became bogged down in logistical disaster, they ran out of water. This disaster was however thwarted through the miraculous rain which began to pour down only after Roman Christian legionnaires knelt to pray. The rain quenched the thirst of Marcus’ troops, and the battle that ensued shortly after included miraculous lightning strikes which fell upon the enemies of the Romans. As supernatural as this event may seem, it did change the mind of the logical Philosopher emperor, who quickly ceased persecutions and changed his Empire-wide policies. Notice of course, the fact that this miracle was only possible due to the presence of Orthodox Christians among the Empire’s legions, again in stark contradiction with the foundational pacifist assertion that military service is sinful.
Vengeance and vindication of oneself is not endorsed by Christ, the Apostles, and the saints. This is mostly an individual feat of virtue and piety. But just as sins can be transferred to a collective body or institution, so can sinful behaviour such as revenge or vengeance be done on a collective scale. St Dimitri of Rostov, the great author of the Church-Slavonic and Russian lives of the Saints, produced one of the few statements condemning vengeful warfare, in it’s simplicity it is both true and undeniable:
“To take up arms against one another and to fight is not a matter of meekness, but of fury, not of peace, but of discord, not of malice, but of revenge, not of love, but of enmity”.
This quote is not extracted out of context, but perhaps from the most anti-war patristic text in the entire Orthodox Christian tradition. We will most certainly return to this particular text in the future to unpack it further, as It is also one of the many chapters which differentiates between an ‘offensive war’ and a ‘defensive war’, at least in the opinion of St Dimitri.
With all this in mind, it should be noted that the true intentions behind a collective expedition or campaign for the sake of revenge are hard to pinpoint throughout the history of Christian nations going to war. This is because intentions are veiled, diplomatic relations are complicated and there are also principles such as geopolitical deterrence which need to be considered.
A striking example of diplomacy turning towards the waging of war occurred in the distant 5th century AD, when the Roman Empress St Pulcheria and her brother Emperor St Theodosius ii waged a war to stop the neighbouring Persia from persecuting Christians. Secular historians may simply conclude that this was a war between religions, ‘a war of revenge’, denying the fact that the saints who ordered it had other, more pious intentions. A closer reading of history shows us that both Orthodox rulers aimed to protect the lives of Christians within the borders of Persia, and to meet these ends, they were willing to wage war.
We should however consider that throughout exegesis the vast majority of saints do not attempt to comment on this issue of ‘national vengeance’, and Church Tradition mostly remains silent on the subject. This personal resistance to avenge oneself is an act of loving your enemy, something unique to Christianity, but this ‘personal aversion’ does not in anyway transfer to those around you, and especially those over whom you have guardianship. Eloquently told by Russian Orthodox historian Vladimir Mahnach, was the story of pious St Seraphim of Sarov, a monastic priest who did not resist when robbers ambushed him and ‘beat him’ almost to death. Despite St Seraphim being of a large stature for a man of the early 19th century. Mahnach indicates aptly that if St Seraphim was with a group of children, a woman, or any visitor at the time, (whom he had many, as he widely venerated and people came to seek his blessing) he would have, without a doubt, protected them with his axe.
It should be said that an extreme act of personal virtue and piety to submit oneself to violence, as an individual person, is indeed rare and even among the saints there are exceptions to this rule. Personal self-defence can be seen many instances, for example in the Life of St Juliana, Princess of Vyazma who struck her husbands killer Prince Yuri of Smolensk with a knife, when he attempted to rape her. Again, this time from a more masculine perspective, the Prince St Andrew who heard assassins approach his bedroom in the middle of the night rushed for his blessed sword (his sword belonged to a prior Christian saint, St Boris, the son of St Vladimir of Kiev) but did not find it, and had to defend himself with his bare hands.
Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke about kings, soldiers, and those who order society as a completely normal phenomenon. Pacifist and ‘Christian Pacificist’ attitudes (and those attitudes do unfortunately exist, especially among certain Protestant denominations) need to be rejected outright, not only on a collective ‘national’ level, but also on a personal level. The future right-wing, conservative, and perhaps Christian societies, should heed the lessons of Orthodox Church Tradition without carrying over any artificial baggage regarding excessive moralization surrounding warfare and state violence from non-Christian or heretical sources. Again, these sources only serve to demoralize social order and unknowingly or knowingly bring justice into decay.
As many English-speaking audiences may be familiar with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (or under it’s abbreviation ROCOR), It produced a great quote relating to Christianity and war from its first hierarch, who was coincidentally also a Metropolitan (a high-ranking Bishop) of the now Ukrainian city of Kiev. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky writes, regarding war:
‘The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus chapter 20:13 ) does not prohibit war, nor the death penalty, but only unauthorized murder. This is first. Secondly, from what has been said it is clear that the Lord Himself commanded in the Old Testament to his people to wage extermination wars and to execute people by death for certain crimes; thirdly, Christ the Saviour recognizes these Old Testament decrees as commandments of God. Do these commandments matter to the New Testament Church? No, we will answer: they do not have a mandatory value. The Orthodox Church in the Old Testament was at the same time a state confined to a certain territory and to a particular tribe; The Church of the New Testament is a spiritual kingdom, and not a state: war and the death penalty, or any compulsory trial in general, are the business of the state, to which, as we said, not a single indication of the New Testament is addressed.’
Again, this is the authoritative opinion of a great former Church hierarch, who was much respected in life and after death. Many brought up in the Protestant or Roman Catholic faith may find such a statement striking, perhaps unnerving, but that is normal. It is the revelation of truth, in all it’s blinding light, and yes that truth may at first hurt the eyes. Ignorance of the truth, however, is no excuse not to attempt to learn it or shy away from it. Especially in times such as these, when huge swathes of the Western world attempt to push this false Christian pacifism onto the Russian people, accusing them of ‘unjustified invasion’, when the unfortunate conflict had already been taking place for 8 years. The Ukrainian regime does not care about Church Tradition, justifications of self-defence, or anything related to Orthodox Christian teaching, so the information herein would fall on deaf ears if explained to an ardent Ukrainian nationalist.
Ironic is the fact that the now persecuted Russian Orthodox Christianity in many ways could be used as a great source for political unity in Ukraine, if Zelenskyy and his leadership would submit to the Church. As we understand, the absolute absence of this possibility leaves only majority-Orthodox Russia and those involved in its Special Military Operation to appreciate the teachings of Church Tradition. If Zelenskyy and his government were of course members of the Orthodox Christian faith, then the words of the 8th century Byzantine saint Theodore Studite would be entirely applicable: “They say a war has arisen, an iconoclastic war – a civil war, what can be more disastrous than Christians exterminating one another?”
Another saint of the early 20th century, a Serbian bishop named Nikolaj Velimirovic, who lived and experienced both World Wars, passed onto us a succinct and clear explanation on the nature of this subject:
‘All wars, from the beginning to the end of history, are biblical wars, that is, all of them are dependent on the living, active and omnipotent will of the Holy Trinity, Invisible and All-Deciding; they all spring from sinfulness, on both sides, or only one of them; they all operate according to the biblical law of causality and end in the way that Eternal, Infallible Justice will award them.’
St Nikolaj speaks here about both the events of the Old Testament, as well as the events which followed Christ’s life and wherein we continue to live out our lives, the New Testament world. Most importantly, to ignore the providence, will and energies of God in the world, is to lose touch with reality. It is a form of insanity, a dull-minded ignorance. Regardless of how strong one’s faith is, or how agnostic or doubtful one may be, the objective cosmic truths taught by the Orthodox Church through it’s Scripture and Tradition still apply.
The rigorous and learned pacifist may argue that Christian Church Fathers of past centuries (which in itself is a nonsensical concept, as Orthodox Christianity is reflective of the Heavenly eternity, there is no strict division between ancient and modern saints) did not have such a ‘lenient, attitude towards war, conflict and collective violence. Answering this challenge is simple if rudimentary research is applied. When discussing rules within the Church, the one word that comes to mind is ’canons’, and what exactly do the early canons teach in regard to war?
St Basil’s 13th Canon, preserved in one of his letters (188) provides us a glimpse on what the early Church taught:
“Homicide in war is not reckoned by our Fathers as homicide; I presume from their wish to make concession to men fighting on behalf of chastity and true religion. Perhaps, however, it is well to counsel that those whose hands are not clean only abstain from communion for three years.”
This rule or canon is one of the benchmarks that is used to this day, 1600 years later, by bishops and priests in providing spiritual guidance to members of their flock who serve in the military.
Similar stances are evidenced in writings of another prominent Church-Father of the early centuries: St Athanasius the Great. In his 48th letter he mentions the permissibility of war:
“It is not right to kill, yet in war it is lawful and praiseworthy to destroy the enemy; accordingly not only are they who have distinguished themselves in the field held worthy of great honours, but monuments are put up proclaiming their achievements. So that the same act is at one time and under some circumstances unlawful, while under others, and at the right time, it is lawful and permissible.”
Again, these are but two prominent and often cited examples from the early centuries of the Christian Church. Over the last two centuries entire books have been dedicated to the matter, for example St Nikolaj’s ‘War and the Bible’ and ‘Resistance to Evil by Force’ by Professor Ivan Ilyin. It is of course futile to repeat these great works, through the means of an internet article. However, what is possible, is tapping into the abundance of internet resources at our disposal to bring together the compositions of past great masters and produce concise, easily readible, texts.
The topic of Geopolitical warfare in Orthodox Christianity has been mentioned and spoken about extensively over the centuries, so this text is but a drop in an ocean, or better yet a ‘taste’ of the multiplicity of angles through which the subject can be approached. One such approach would be to view warfare through the three distinct roles in the Orthodox Church Tradition: Clergy, laity, and monastics. Another would be to look specifically at the burden of decision-making and diplomacy for Christian laymen in the highest echelons of political power.
To conclude this first text, it would seem appropriate to provide one of the clearest, and relevant to the year 2023, quotations from a prominent 19th century Orthodox bishop. St Theophan the Recluse wrote this paragraph in a letter directly responding to the rising popularity of pacifism in the late Russian Empire:
“Through warriors and wars, God often displayed blessings, both in the old and in the New Testament. How many princes have we glorified with relics? All of them were fighters. In the caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra lie the relics of warriors. They fought out of love for their own, so that they are not subjected to captivity and violence by the enemy.”
Excellent article. I’m looking forward to reading more on this topic. Thank you.
🔥