Two Swords

Why Nonviolence?

2012-01-09T15:37:00.000-08:00

Christ is in our midst!

The Church is founded in the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Peter was the first to declare this, and Jesus told him this can only be truly known to those whose hearts are open to God's revelation. It cannot be known through "flesh and blood"- through any worldly wisdom or observation of phenomena or persuasive argument.
Likewise with Nonviolence.
You either get it or you dont. Most dont, for it is a hard word.

Shortly after Jesus grounds the Church in Peter's inspired confession, Peter is rebuked more harshly than anyone for he returns to a worldly way of understanding power and knows Jesus by 'flesh and blood' alone:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it."
-Matt. 16

There is only one reason for a Christian to embrace nonviolence: because it brings us into the Kingdom of Heaven with Christ our Lord. Christ is the only source of freedom and joy, and there is no happiness without him. He has made it clear that to be one with him- to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect- we must love our enemies and even give our lives for them in this love.
This is a hard word, but it is a word of joy and freedom too.
For we only find true and eternal life by embracing death. This is the Christian paradox.

For all of his enthusiasm, Peter was a slow learner. He is the quintessential disciple in that regard. Shortly after declaring his devotion to Jesus his Master, Peter betrays him three times. But even before this Peter fails to grasp the radical freedom and courage that union with God can bring:

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
-Matt 26

If we would be truly free- truly united with Christ our Life, our Peace, our Joy- then we too must ascend the cross in our lives and allow events to "happen this way."
Nonviolence is a radical path, but it is not the source of pain, suffering, insecurity, and death. It is the pinacle of faith in a God who commands Legions of Angels and can deliver us from any circumstance that is not for our salvation. Nonviolence is ultimate freedom from the cares of this world, setting our minds on things above and experiencing the peace, joy, and freedom that the only Son of God knew and lived and walked in Himself.
It is a hard word, but it is life giving word.

Glory to God who was baptized in the Jordan for our salvation!
-Mark Basil

St Basil's Nonviolence

2012-01-01T00:00:00.000-08:00

Happy New year!
January 1st is my Names Day, the Feast of St Basil the Great.
There is so much I love about St Basil; of course I have found consolation his infamous advice to the Church that Christian soldiers who kill in battle should be disciplined. This demonstrates the obvious: killing is always sinful.

St Basil wrote:

Our fathers did not consider killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that their hands are not clean.
-Canon 13 of the 92

As far as I am aware, the Church has never accepted Basil's holy council. Is this any surprise? Can you imagine the reaction among state and military leaders if Christian soldiers were disciplined for killing? This is completely against the interests of worldly powers. Bishops might actually be persecuted if they tried implementing this cannon which runs so contrary to national interests.
One might say that traditionally, the Church has chosen to disregard St Basil's recommended discipline for soldiers.
This raises an important question:
What makes our Church Tradition Holy?
It is nothing other than the work of the Holy Spirit revealing the truth of Jesus Christ that sanctifies Church Tradition. It is not enough for a teaching to stand the test of time, or even to receive wide-scale consensus among the bishops to establish it as Holy Tradition (though these are very helpful indicators).
Only Christ and Him Crucified makes Church Tradition holy. Everything must be tested against the revelation of the God-man Jesus Christ. Only where a teaching serves as a prism to the light of Christ, do we know it is a trustworthy part of Holy Tradition.

For centuries now the Church has failed to implement St Basil's council for the discipline of soldiers (where discipline should be understood as a posture of repentance for the healing of the spiritually wounded killer). Nevertheless it is part of our Holy Tradition for it shines with the gospel of Jesus Christ, who became man and thus sanctified all human life.

St. Gregory the Theologian's praise of his friend St Basil the Great, after he fell asleep, reveals the Orthodox worldview alive in Basil and necessary for any Christian to respond to violence with love:
When Saint Basil was summoned by the emperor Valentius to admit the Arians to Communion,the prefect in charge, finding that soft words had no effect, said to him, “Are you mad, that youresist the will before which the whole world bows? Do you not dread the wrath of the emperor,nor exile, nor death?” “No,” said Basil calmly; “he who has nothing to lose need not dread loss of goods; you cannot exile me, for the whole earth is my home; as for death, it would be the greatestkindness you could bestow upon me; torments cannot harm me; one blow would end both my fraillife and my sufferings.” The prefect answered, “Never has anyone dared to address me thus.” “Perhaps,” suggested Basil, “you never before measured your strength with a Christian bishop.” The emperor desisted from his commands.

Christ is born, making a nonviolent life possible

2011-12-30T16:59:00.000-08:00

The Orthodox Church knows that war is evil- even the greatest evil.
This is of course true because it is the antithesis of the work of God in our midst, the antithesis of salvation: Emanuel has come to reconcile Man who was estranged from God, and He has given us the minstry of reconciliation. And so there is nothing more characteristically Christian than being a peacemaker.
War is the inversion of this- War is the tearing apart of creation pitting brothers against each other and destroying God's creation. War is a fundamental betrayal of our Christian vocation.

War is a great evil, even the greatest evil, and yet I have also heard people add, "true, but it is a necessary evil."
This is a lie.
War is not necessary, for Christ is born! The only sinless one has shown us that it is possible to live a life without resort to lethal violence under any circumstances. But the cost of this sinlessness is very great- no less than our own lives. Christ has shown us that sinlessness and absolute nonviolence is possible in this fallen world, however it will require the sacrifice of our very life to fulfill this calling.
War is only 'necessary' for those who refuse the cross, who refuse to enter the passion of our Lord, the sinless One.

War is not a necessary evil, for God has lived a perfect life in the flesh!
Nonviolence has not been tried and found wanting.
Nonviolence has been found difficult and left untried by most Christians.

Elder Porphyrios on Violence: Whom do we glorify?

2011-12-20T11:22:00.000-08:00

I asked the Elder what his opinion was on the matter [of love and violence]. "The things are confused." He went on to tell this parable:
"Once there was a monastery on a mountain, where the monks lived in peace... [Among the monks there was a novice who newly repented from a fierce life as a chief-robber, and an old monk he was to work with.] One day the Abbot sent the two monks to chop wood from the mountain and bring it back to the monastery for the winter. They set off wit their donkey, they reached the mountain, they chopped down the wood, loaded it up, but before they managed to set off robbers appeared before them. They took the donkey with the wood and beat up the monks. The chief-robber monk was enraged, but before he made any move whatsoever, he asked his companion: 'What do the books say we should do now?'
His companion replied, 'Nothing, Christ's law says that if someone slaps your face, you should turn the other cheek.' The robbers left wit the stolen goods. The monks also left empty-handed and beaten. When the Abbot saw them he felt sorry, but he didn't say anything. A few days later he sent them to the mountain again, with another donkey, but more-or-less the same thing happened again. The Abbot was very thoughtful; he didn't know what to do. But, since it was very cold, with a great deal of effort, he found a third beast, and sent them to the mountains yet again. At the very moment when they were getting ready to leave the same robbers turned up again, they took the donkey and again they started to beat them up.
The chief-robber monk's indignation came to a head. However, he again asked his companion, 'Quickly Elder, find out what the Scriptures tell us to do.'
His companion again said to him, 'Nothing, the law of Christ says patience and love towards enemies.'
The chief-robber monk was not satisfied and said to him, 'Think hard, aren't there any other scriptures that say something else?'
His companion answered, 'Well, there's also the Old Testament, with the Law of Moses.'
'And what does that law say?'
'It says an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'
'That's a good law,' said the chief-robber monk and landed a punch on one of the robbers, knocking him flat out. The other robbers looked at him in surprise. Then he ripped open his robes and showed them his very hairy chest. 'Do you know who I am?' he said to the terrified robbers. 'I am so-and-so the famous chief-robber, who became a monk. If you don't want me to make mincemeat out of the lot of you, you had better leave us the loaded donkey and get cracking to bring us back the other two donkeys, which you stole, and make sure they're loaded with wood.'
The robbers complied with his order. So, the two monks returned triumphantly to the monastery, with three loaded donkeys. As soon as the Abbot saw them, he started crossing himself and glorifying Christ. Then the chief-robber monk said to him, 'Don't glorify Christ, holy father, but glorify Moses. We brought back all the stolen goods with the law of Moses, because if we had kept to Christ's law we would have returned both thrashed and empty handed.' "

Excerpt from "With Elder Porphyrios: A spiritual child remembers," by Constantine Yiannitsiotis

What God has Joined Together

2011-12-07T21:29:00.001-08:00

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have been thinking a lot about marriages.
My parents have an unusually good marriage; not only salvific but full of joy and they would even say a relatively easy marriage. Their cooperation has birthed many acts of love and mercy.
In contrast I know of a marriage where the husband seems profoundly selfish and has systematically isolated his wife from her broader family and seems only content if she is his and his alone. I think of other couples in which there are imbalanced power dynamics- one partner trying to dominate another, full of insecurities. Many marriages seem to have these unhealthy characteristics.
I think of yet another couple, married for several decades. The husband always loved his wife more than she loved him. His love was manifest in an almost subservience to her will, and she willed to be done with the Christian faith; slowly but surely, her husband followed. Now all their adult children have left Christ.

And so of course when I think of marriage I think of divorce.
A new friend recently divorced her husband because he changed his mind and didn't want to have kids. Another friend is separated from her husband because he lacks compassion, and his family always treated her poorly. Yet another friend divorced his wife because she was so verbally abusive he felt he was shrinking away to nothing. Another friend divorced his wife because "she was crazy, literally." She hurt herself and hurt him and didn't really love him.

Why is marrital fidelity the Christian ideal?

In light of all this suffering, why should couples not divorce?
Every situation needs to be carefully worked through with a skilled spiritual father or mother. However I think it is because when two are joined together they become one flesh-- a new life exists, and to divorce is to kill that which God Himself created. To suffer in marriage (always unjustly), is to suffer for love, to suffer for Christ, and to lose one's life in order to find it in one's nearest neighbour.

When I look at all these marriages full of sickness and brokenness, and all these divorces, I think I have learned that (in adition to Christians remembering marriage is martyrdom not self-fulfillment), our loyalty must FIRST be to Christ, and then to our spouse.
In the marriages that 'work', I often see one spouse surrendering healthy parts of their identity, or betraying their conscience "for the sake of the marriage." I do not believe this is right. We are not called to divorce, but neither are we called to make the marriage work as smoothly as possible. We are called to be faithful to Christ.
I now believe that sometimes this will mean holding fast to a truth, or an attitude, or a behaviour that genuinely makes the marriage harder. Perhaps even drives our spouse to dislike us more and maybe even want to separate. Still, where our heart is purified in prayers and peace, we must choose to remain loyal to Christ before our spouse. This is a very hard road and it is the cause of suffering. But I believe it is not enough just to "avoid divorce" if it comes at the cost of betraying our conscience or our self-- which is to say Christ, the Truth, in us.

God help us.
-MB

Today is St Silouan's Feast Day

2011-09-24T23:00:00.000-07:00

We only love Christ as much as we love our enemies.
-St Silouan the Athonite

Romans 13

2011-09-08T17:39:00.001-07:00

Evening Christopher.
Thanks for your very thoughtful response in return. I expected a much harsher censure; I appreciate your sympathy and kindness.

We would share a lot in our critique of "pacifism" (as you know by now if you've checked out my blog).
The Romans 13 passage you refer to is an excellent scripture to bring into discussion. It has long been used to legitimate State violence. However a very careful read does not substantiate this exegesis. In fact the passage means quite the opposite, as I will demonstrate.

First there is a small but very significant misunderstanding of the phrase, "beareth not the sword in vain," which needs clearing up. To say that the State does not bear the sword in vain does not in itself anyway condone the state's use of the sword (lethal force). It simply means that the state does not threaten lethal violence idly, but really can and will use lethal force. This is like saying, "Be careful with lions. They do not bear their teeth in vein." It does not mean that the lion *should* use its teeth violently, nor that it will always use its teeth rightly. It means only that it *has* teeth and it is prepared to use them violently! This is a very important shift in meaning.
Now onto the real meat of the argument.
This little bit of scripture in Romans 13 has a loaded interpretive history and is heavy laden with 'hermeneutical baggage.' To read this text correctly we must not begin with our modern experience of a basically friendly State. We must instead begin with the profound incongruity between Paul's opening comment and his own interactions with the Roman Empire, an experienced reality shared by his readership (and so the lens through which they were expected to read the text)—early Christians living in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero. St Paul is writing to the Roman church about the brutal Roman State, who under the leadership of Nero would later persecute Christians and even behead St Paul.
It is this wicked Emperor—enemy of the Gospel and persecutor of Christians—that Paul and his readership have immediately in mind when St Paul says, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God… For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil."
Emperor Nero is not a terror to good works? This enemy of the Way is the authority appointed by God? It should be clear in this proper interpretive light that St Paul is speaking about a hidden reality—not a later 'Constantinian' marriage between State and Church, not an American cooperation between the 'righteous aims' shared by good, trustworthy, democratically elected 'moral government' and the widely acknowledged good citizens that 'religious people' are.
What Paul says here is radically opposed to all that early Christians are experiencing under Nero's brutal rule. This is profoundly different than the experiential 'lens' through which Christians have read this passage, more or less since the time of Constantine.
We would better capture the controversial thrust of St Paul's comments if we could read this text through the eyes of Christians persecuted in Communist Russia, or even as Jews under the "God ordained" authority of Nazi Germany!
These political realities are far closer to the experience of St Paul and his readership in the Romans Chapter 13 passage.

So was Paul simply mistaken when he wrote of this State that, "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."?
In light of St Paul's own death for doing good not evil at the hands of rulers who bear the sword, one might think so.
However I do not think so. The deeper spiritual meaning of St Paul's claim that such rulers are "not a terror" to those who do good is found in Fr Michael's earlier quote from our Lord, "fear not those who can kill the body." When we do what is good as believers, we rejoice and give thanks to God for our persecutions. Persecution and even death by the sharp edge of the State Sword becomes our victory crown, as it was for St Paul. This is Paul's deeper meaning. It is the only intelligible exegesis in light of the "terror" the State was to Paul and to persecuted early Christians (a terror by the world's common sense standards). Otherwise, Paul was foolish and naive (if not completely off his rocker) to think that the State will literally always praise good works and punish evil works consistently.
The State cannot be a terror to good works. It is true. This does not mean that the State only uses its sword against evil doers. St Paul's martyrdom itself demonstrates this. And so in what way was the State's Sword God's minister to Paul for good? Clearly it was Paul's identification with Christ's passion through his martyric death, that God used the State Sword to accomplish.
In fact, far from legitimating or condoning Roman State violence in Rom. 13, St Paul was giving Christians who feared the Roman State the proper courageous response to the State as an enemy to the Christian way. Rom 13 is in fact a passage about how to conquer fear and love (the persons who make up) the State even when the State makes itself our enemy.

I have argued this is the only reasonable exegesis in light of St Paul's own death and the experienced reality of the first Christians. It is also the only possible exegesis in light of the Passion of Christ (again, this is the interpretive lens of Paul and his intended audience who followed the crucified Lord). Our Lord Himself was a victim of State Violence! This in itself makes a mockery of a simplistic reading of the Romans passage to legitimate state violence where it states, "Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same... But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
Our Lord was clearly not praised by the State authorities for His goodness, rather the wrath of the State Sword was used against Him, not for 'practicing evil' but precisely for His good deeds. It is remarkable how blind Christians have been to this as the proper interpretive key to understanding Paul in Romans 13.
Jesus Himself explains how it is that the State Sword is "God's minister for good," both to us and to our Lord Jesus Himself:
Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”
Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above." (John 19:10-11)
This reveals the true meaning of Rom. 13: we have no need to resist the State even when it turns its sword against us in enmity, because we know God our Father wills or permits all things. Instead we must remain obedient to our Father, who has given authority to the State to wield the sword against us. We need not fear. However this does not mean we will be materially spared from the wrath of the state. Objectively and according to the vision of this world, Jesus received the same reward for His good works as the wicked thief on his left did for evil deeds. God made His sword to fall on both alike. However spiritually they received opposite reward: the State violence became our Lord's Triumphant Victory as He was lifted up over all His enemies. The wicked thief received State violence as punishment for his evil deeds.
We are to imitate Christ's obedience to His Father's will when we are persecuted and killed by the State, as a special case of loving our enemies in the state when they wield the sword against us "not in vein" but with genuine intent to kill our bodies.

I have treated the Romans passage alone in this comment.
I believe all the other points you make are thoroughly addressed in my own blog.
Of course I welcome any response and ask your prayers.
with care;
-Mark Basil

Old Testament Violence

2011-05-22T22:57:00.001-07:00

(Orthodox Icons of the Resurrection do not show Jesus emerging from the tomb or merely coming back to life. They depict the real meaning of the Resurrection: Christ's descent into Hell, rescuing all those held captive by death and the devil. This 14th c. Fresco from a church in Turkey depicts Christ's "Harrowing of Hell")

Christ is risen!

This morning as part of my regular pre-communion prayers I chanted from Psalm 24 (23):

Lift up your heads O gates!
And be lifted up O ancient doors!
That the King of glory may come in.
Who is the King of glory?
The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle!
...He is the King of glory!

I have come to love this Psalm very much.
Why would I as a pacifist love a psalm that praises God as "mighty in battle?" Well, because I'm an Orthodox Christian and I read the Hebrew Scriptures with the Mind of the Church. Orthodox do not read the scriptures shackled to literalism. We read the scriptures with hearts beating in our chests and we understand them only insofar as our heart has become a holy temple of the living God. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Previous to my life in the Orthodox Church this psalm was one of many OT scritpures that disturbed me by attributing carnal violence to the good God. How refreshing it was to discover the deeper spiritual meaning of these God-breathed texts. The Orthodox Church teaches that after Jesus was crucified He descended into the depths, burst the gates of Hell and brought the good news to those held captive there. He thereby conquered death and raised those willing to come with Himself!
---------------
((These days I quickly get bored and shake my head when I hear other modern day 'pacifists' complain about violent language and imagery in the Bible. These Christians are as literalist as their rightwing counterparts who try to use OT violence to justify their hawkish warmongering! (Interestingly the latter dont try to justify modern genocide and scrorched earth using OT examples of the same).
Neither of these camps understands the poetic and mystical nature of Holy Scripture. We dont read the bible like a fact book to acquire data, we read scripture to commune with Jesus Christ. In the beginning was the Word. And so we must seek Christ in every sentence, every phrase of Holy Scripture. Until we see Jesus the Prince of Peace we do not yet see the meaning of the text.
So yes, God is a warrior!
To those pacifists whose literalist stomaches are too queasy to accept this, there's nothing more to say. As a friend of mine often says, "Orthodoxy is paradoxy". One must accept this or never read the scriptures with the Mind of the Church. Paradoxically, the Prince of Peace is a Mighty Warrior. Jesus Christ is victorious over sin, death, and the devil! Likewise, paradoxically, Christian pacifism is certainly not passive inaction; the Kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent take it by force.))
------------------
So, illumined by the Resurrection, the Church teaches that the "gates" and "ancient doors" from Psalm 24 above are none other than the gates of Hell. God's mighty battle is not with flesh and blood but with the spiritual powers of darkness that wish to enslave us and destroy all of creation in misery and death. The God who is mighty in battle is none other than the crucified Jesus Christ bursting the ancient doors of death and conquering Hell!

Yes, our God is a warrior! And this is God's violence: Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

Yes, YHWH is a warrior. My God is strong and mighty, mighty in battle! But as St Paul has taught us, "we do not war against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph. 6:12)

May we Orthodox who are baptised in Christ be truly illumined warriors and not look to the Old Testament to justify our warmaking.
We are Christians, Jesus is our Lord. His Kingdom is not of this world; so too our warfare is not earthly but spiritual. The battleground is our own heart and the enemies are our own sinful impulses. We may fight the good fight and establish heaven within ourselves, or we may lay down our spiritual arms and willingly re-forge our ploughshares into carnal weapons to faithlessly kill our earthly enemies instead.
It is possible even to kill them without raising a single finger-- with our hatred, our lies, our slander. Thereby we refuse God's Kingdom here on earth and instead prefer to rebuild the gates of hell around our own hearts.

I for one choose death and hell often.
But I do not despair for my God is a warrior; He has crashed those ancient gates before and He will rescue me again, He will rescue me again, He will rescue me again.

Glory to God for His victory!
-Mark Basil

What is God's heart toward His enemies?

2011-05-04T22:28:00.000-07:00

Christ is risen!

I have noticed over the years a correlation between belief in a wrathful god and those who wish to place limits on Christ's command to love our enemies.

I am a wrathful person myself and indulge violent fantasies at times. I especially enjoy imagining myself in a position of righteous judgement: perfectly aligned with God's will, I 'bring down evils upon mine enemies'.

Reading the Saints and Fathers, I see there is also a correlation between belief in an infinitely merciful God and those who have 'violently' crashed through all natural limits of human love, and scandalize decency with their love even for the worst of enemies.

Question: What is a merciful heart?:
Answer: It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for demons, and for all that exists. By the recollection of them the eyes of a merciful person pour forth tears in abundance. By the strong and vehement mercy that grips such a person's heart, and by such great compassion, the heart is humbled and one cannot bear to hear or to see any injury or slight sorrow in any in creation. For this reason, such a person offers up tearful prayer continually even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth, and for those who harm him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner such a person prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns with without measure in a heart that is in the likeness of God...
Question: When is a person sure of having arrived at purity?
Answer: When that person considers all human beings are good, and no created thing appears impure or defiled. Then a person is truly pure in heart. Love is sweeter than life. Sweeter still, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb Is the awareness of God whence love is born. Love is not loath to accept the hardest of deaths For those it loves. Love is the child of knowledge. Lord, fill my heart with eternal life.

As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God's love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion: remorse. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of heaven by its delectibility.

If zeal had been appropriate for putting humanity right, why did God the Word clothe himself in the body, using gentleness and humility in order to bring the world back to his Father?
-St Isaac the Syrian

Violence in Protection of my Family?

2010-09-04T22:53:00.000-07:00

Glory to Jesus Christ!

A couple months ago, I entered a little online conversation about violence.
My comment was in response to other Orthodox who do not see pacifism as proper to Orthodox Christianity. It was a conversation that grew out of discussing how one ought to defend one's family.

Should Orthodox Christian's carry firearms with the express intention to use them against potentially threatening humans?
I dont think so.

My answer to this question is a natural consequence of deeper thoughts about the nature of "Orthodox Morality"; about Christian Love, Faith, and Hope in the world to come.

Below is my comment, reprinted:
-----------------------------------------------

Who said anything about pacifism? Not me.
Pacifism is a straw-man. I'll use it when convenient and cast it aside when going deeper.
Properly understood I am not a pacifist any more than St Silouan or St Seraphim. I am a Christian soldier who has been commanded by my King to love my enemies. As an Orthodox Christian I seek to obey Christ's commandments, for this is how I may become conformed to the likeness of God my Father, whose love is perfect precisely because it does not differentiate between the unborn innocents and the unrighteous. (He makes his rain to fall and His sun to shine on both, equally. Why? Because all of ADAM is One- the innocent unborn may have grown into the monstrous killer; it matters not. His sin is mine and my sin is his; any amount of my 'ethical uprightness' is a gift from God. I have had an easy life, virtue is practically spoonfed to me by godly, loving family, friends, and fathers. Our only enemy is Satan and my own passions which he works on. I am the sinner and moral degenerate, I am the murderer and the rapist; my own sin is the cause of all wars. My Adamic sin has brought all of you and the whole creation crashing down into futility and corruption; everything is linked.)

The problem with this discussion is that we are forgetting what the goal of Orthodoxy is-- Theosis.
It is not "being a moral person", a good person, even a better person. It is being god by grace. A total transformation; a new creation.
Look at the beatitudes- Christ has us climb the ladder past purity of heart before we can become peacemakers!
Which one of us discussing peace here is pure in heart? None, and that is why we do not see God, we cannot be peacemakers.
Peacemaking is the blessing Christ explicitly links with Theosis-- only as peacemakers can we be sons of God. We are only sons by adoption, by union with the One Son, the only Peacemaker, the Prince of Peace Himself.
Where is Christ's "violence in defense of justice"?

Later in the mountaintop Sermon, we are told what makes Christian love different from "instinctual love" which is common to the carnal world: it is the love of enemies, precisely, that makes us Christians.
This is again where [your] differentiation between the morally depraved and morally innocent is misguided and not helpful to Orthodox Christians. You cannot find that sort of language and thinking among our Holy Mystics; all of ADAM is One for them. Christ says we are not to love like that, [brother], but to love even our enemies if we would be perfect like our Father in heaven.

So, He has linked peacemaking with Sonship (theosis), and now has linked love of enemies with Godly Perfection (theosis). Peacemaking is love of enemies as Christ loved His enemies on the Cross, which was the act of ultimate nonviolent love.
This is the key to understanding how and why our Church has preserved nonviolent love of enemies as the highest form of theosis: Such a pure, voluntary sacrifice of one's own life *not* for his country or his family, but for his enemy (who thereby becomes his nation and family!), for an evil doer like me Christ died, in the violent hands of an evil doer like me Christ refused to call down his army in Heaven, for this is not how God fights. The true battle is spiritual, not carnal. But [brother], you and I simply cannot be nonviolent, even if we wanted to be.
People struggle understanding Orthodox nonviolence because they think it's asking too much, too much in the fallen world. It's unrealistic and frankly terrifying.
Of course it is.
This is why it is preserved only in the very greatest of our Saints.

All of *us* saints are in a struggle to purify ourselves of the passions and acquire the Holy Spirit. Let's suppose one of us manages to make it a great distance, even becomes a real Saint! Now, each of us look at himself now, what he thinks does, and ask, "would I want this thought and behaviour to be linked with sainthood, with perfection?"
Oh God no!
So we have to realize all the saints are also men who were always *becoming* saints. All of them had "sins of their youth" and would not want everything they did to be celebrated or taught. And of all our glorified Saints there are degrees too- some few are Giants among giants! Not all reached the same measure of perfection! So we look to the greatest and what do we see?
We only see, there, renunciation of violence, love of enemies, and passion-bearing.
In looking at the Saints we also need to remember *why* they were canonized. Some were canonized for purity and holiness, others, while certainly being good and faithful Orthodox, were canonized because God used them to accomplish some holy end- and even if we would not take much of their behaviour and teaching as examples, we *should* see their great great acts in the history of the Church as examples to imitate ourselves (take for example, Ss Cyril and Methodious, those great champions among Missionaries, or St Constantine, who humbled himself enough to realize he was not a god, and who turned the tide of assault away from our brothers, *and* who called the Bishops together in Council! But, he was not baptized- not dead to sin and receiving the Holy Mysteries- until his penitent death bed).

So, I am not a pacifist. And I am not nonviolent. My heart rages all the time- I kill brothers and enemies alike in my passions.
Christ did not die to make bad men good, but dead men alive. It is a mistake to see nonviolence as some "moral standard" This is not Orthodox. Sin is a sickness, and the question is, do we want to get better? If so, acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the only goal, not "becoming a pacifist." or any other "moral program". The problem is not that we *dont* do what's right it is that we *cant* do what's right. This is why the Law failed, but the Incarnation succeeds!
Nevertheless the Church does demonstrate that those who become one with Christ love even their enemies, and like Christ, will die for them even when they are our enemies.
St Stephen showed us the same thing and all the martyrs since.

Here are two quotes, the first from St Silouan (who taught that humility and love of enemies were the greatest fruit of Christian spirituality, and that we only love Christ as much as we love our enemies), and Bl. Sophrony his disciple:

"The soul that has known the Lord wants to see Him within her at all times, for the Lord enters the soul in quietness and gives her peace, and bears silent witness to salvation. If the kings and rulers of the nations knew the love of God, they would never make war. War happens to us for our sins, not because of our love. The Lord created us in His love, and bade us live in love, and glorify Him. If those in high places kept the commandments of the Lord, and we obeyed them in humility, there would be great peace and gladness on earth, whereas now the whole universe suffers because of the ambition for power and absence of submission among the proud."
-St Silouan

When we read the Gospel, the reactions of Christ to what is taking place around Him astonish us. When Judas is going out to betray Him, He says, 'Today the Son of Man is glorified'. At every Liturgy we commemorate this moment, we repeat it in our consciousness. If a hostile enemy military force takes us to kill us, will we be capable of saying: 'It is today that I am glorified and that God is glorified in me'? You all know this account in the Gospel; it is the very content of our everyday life.
-Bl. Sophrony (in Words of Life)

Notice, again, that Bl Sophrony brings us away from "Philosophy of Ethics," and into the proper Orthodox question: ontological transformation- new creation in the very likeness of Christ; theosis.
We dont need to become pacifists any more than prolifers; committing ourselves to nonviolence is useless when our hearts are still full of passions and vitriol. We act out of the fullness of our hearts; it is useless to know what is right if I am incapable of doing it.
Thus our only goal is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit.
But in this movement, it is not helpful to kill- ever. Killing human beings always separates us from Christ. This is the very point of St Basil's recommendation that even Soldiers who kill in battle *still* be kept from receiving the Holy Mysteries (for "perhaps three years")-- because their hands are unclean.

What can we learn from this?
That it is harmful for our salvation if we think killing is consistent with theosis- union with Christ.
It is not consistent.

Someone brought up warrior saints. This is truly a misnomer; no one in the Orthodox Church is glorified for his participation in carnal warfare. St Paul told us explicitly that our battle is *not* with flesh and blood but with the spiritual powers. Christ demonstrated this when he went willingly to his death rather than adorning weaponry for carnal battle as our carnal general (as the Jews expected of their Messiah). None of the disciples mobilized to protect themselves violently after St Stephen was martyred. Carnal weaponry is useless- worse even it is detrimental- in spiritual battle.

The so called "warrior saints" are much loved by princes and sons of men in power everywhere, who need to use violence to accomplish their plans. Look more closely brothers: were any of these saints glorified because *They effectively shed the blood of others*, or in every single case was it on the contrary that they shed their own blood martyrically? And many of these great men in their own struggle for salvation had to leave soldiering (often becoming monks), as the Spirit lead them toward greater holiness, climbing the beatitudes toward perfection as it were.

Orthodox morality is not about some standard we should live by, it is about a goal that is out of reach and impossible: perfection.
If Christ is the only true human being, then Christ is normative. Perfection is Normative. Brothers are we going to look only at what an Orthodox Christian is "permitted" to do? Or like St Peter will we cast our eyes on Christ alone and by faith, strive for what we ought to do.
It is a mistake to say that b/c the world is fallen, we cant expect perfection to "work" for us in difficult situations. Sin is never necessary, perfection is always possible. To deny this is to deny the incarnation. To claim there might be some situations where one *must* kill- must sin- to accomplish some greater good, this is to claim Christ might have come into a situation where he could not maintain the perfect hypostatic union of God and man!
No.
Nonviolent love of enemies- national and domestic, private and public- works exactly as it did for Christ: it works in blood shed and life voluntarily given up on our own cross.

What does St Paul say about "Orthodox morality"?
Everything is permissible— but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible— but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
-1Cor.10

For Orthodox, you surely may kill in warfare or self defense. You may divorce and remarry (hell, go for it three times). You may use birth control. You may acquire vast wealth.
Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.
What are we doing if we're only talking about what we are *permitted* to do, as sinful people in the fallen world? Do we take economia as excuse for laxity? Or as an alternative to the ideal?
No. Mercy and forgiveness are there, always, but true, godlike joy and freedom are there only for those few who enter through the narrow gate.
The church allows us to choose imperfection because our hearts are hard, but Christ beckons us to have faith, to take up our cross and follow him, even walking on all the chaos and death of the raging waters of our violent world.

A final couple thoughts about defending one's family, which has come up a few times.
What does the Church hold up as the ideal? The early Christian who renounced Christ to save the earthly life of his children, or the father who refused to renounce Christ and consequently watched his children beheaded, with confident hope in the resurrection?

Of course far more took the former approach- with their tongues they denied Christ in human weakness. And what do we say of them? God loves and forgives them. But they are not the image of the perfect Way.
You do not have your earthly life or the lives of your family to grasp in a closed fist, but to live in purity and repentance, giving yourselves up always in faith, hope, and love. We must live as if we are dead. Then we are perfectly secure and fear nothing.

Furthermore, there will never be a situation where you could *kill* for your family, but could not die for them.
Every parent should be ready to die for his children, and every husband to die for his wife; this will be a fruitful witness to his love and an image of God's love.
But to claim that it's not enough just to die for them- that you should kill to protect them- it seems to me that if you make this argument you blaspheme the Passion of the Bridegroom Himself, who did not kill, or defend, but died for His Bride, that She might truly live, even when she, in imitating him, will also die in the flesh to live in the Spirit.

asking your prayers and forgiveness, brothers;
-Mark Basil

[as always I welcome response and interaction, and my request for your prayer is very real]

St Cyril's poor exegesis

2010-05-19T17:52:00.000-07:00

In the [Muslim] Saracen encampment they asked St. Cyril [Enlightener of the Slavs]: “How can Christians wage war and at the same time keep Christ’s commandment to pray to God for their enemies?’ To this, St. Cyril replied: “If two commandments were written in one law and given to men for fulfilling, which man would be a better follower of the law: The one who fulfilled one commandment or the one who fulfilled both?’ The Saracens replied: “Undoubtedly, he who fulfills both commandments.” St. Cyril continued: “Christ our God commands us to pray to God for those who persecute us and even do good to them, but He also said to us, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). That is why we bear the insults that our enemies cast at us individually and why we pray to God for them. However, as a society, we defend one another and lay down our lives, so that the enemy would not enslave our brethren, would not enslave their souls with their bodies, and would not destroy them in both body and soul.”
(recently posted on Salt and the Earth, from The Prologue of Ohrid)

Reading again the Q&A between St Cyril (in 851, before his mission to the Slavs) and Arab Muslim's, I have to say I prefer the insight of the Muslim's question to the answer our saint here offers.
It reminds me of something Gandhi said-- Everyone but Christians understands that Jesus was nonviolent.

Indeed I have always been disappointed with St Cyril's exchange here, though to be fair he was in a rather tough political position with some rather heavy social pressure in the immediate context.

Taking a closer look at St Cyril's response I think it definitely fails.
First, Christ did not give us two commandments with regard to our enemies but only this one: You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies (this is the one the Muslims remember). This commandment is of course from the Sermon on the Mount, basically the gospel in it's purest and most essential form. And in this very context of course Christ contrasts this sort of radical enemy-love with the 'love' that is ubiquitous even among sinners, “love your enemies... that you may be sons of your Father in heaven... For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same... Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Here, love of enemies is the distinctive mark of genuinely Christian Love-- it is the condition of sonship (identification with the Son who loves his enemies), in likeness to our Father who is good to all equally (unlike preferential love among unbelievers), and finally, requisite for the very stature of perfection.

The passage of Scripture St Cyril cites, suggesting "another commandment" is not actually a command, which leads to my next point.

Second, unlike the clear command from our Lord to love our enemies, the second passage of scripture St Cyril refers to is a comment on the nature of love from St John's gospel: "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends." (Jn. 15:13). We do not get from this any permission to kill. On the contrary St John the Theologian elaborates on this comment in an epistle, repeating nearly the same words with illuminating context:

"Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."
-1Jn 3:15-17

I would say St Cyril's use of this scripture, falsely as a "second command," is simply poor exegesis: far from justifying killing our enemies we are admonished by St John to lay down our own life for our brother. What this has to do with killing in carnal warfare I do not see. The verse before gives us a very different image-- here laying down our lives for our brothers is in the likeness of Christ's passion. And we might recall that the "brothers" our Lord died for were none other than His enemies.
(cf. Rom 5:10: "...while we were [God's] enemies we were reconciled to [Him] through the death of His Son...").

A proper exegesis of this passage only seems to strengthen the Muslims' dispute with St Cyril. To love as Christ loved, we must lay down our lives for our brethren, *and*-- out of love-- for our enemies as well.
Unlike the picture painted by St Cyril ("...But in company we defend one another...") we do not see any effort at all among the first Christians to defend themselves violently. Two good examples are the protomartyr Stephen and the witness of Bp Ignatius.

In the first case Stephen spoke the gospel unflinchingly and was stoned to death, praying for his attackers as they killed him. Having witnessed this why did Stephens contemporary believers not rush out and buy swords, mobilizing to defend themselves in future confrontations? Of course full of the Holy Spirit, they abhorred the shedding of blood and in contrast to "defending one another in battle", fearlessly and willingly lay down their lives that their witness be fruitful. the very seed of the Church is the blood of these martyrs.
St Ignatius gives us a correct image of this yearning to make our witness as fruitful as possible, and begs his loved ones not to do exactly what St Cyril tries to argue. From Fr John Behr's little book The Mystery of Christ:
"The life in death, begun by dying to sin in baptism as a "likeness" of Christ's death, finds fruition in the eucharistic self-offering of the Christian in his or her own bodily death in witness to Christ. This finds striking expression in St Ignatius, when he beseeches the Christians in Rome not to interfere with his impending martyrdom:

Suffer me to be eaten by the beasts, through whom I can attain to God. I am God's wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread of Christ... It is better for me to die in Christ Jesus than to be king over the ends of the earth. I seek him who died for our sake. I desire him who rose for us. The pains of birth are upon me. Suffer me, my brethren; hinder me not from living, do not wish me to die. Do not give to the world one who desires to belong to God, nor deceive him with material things. Suffer me to receive the pure light; when I shall have arrived there, I shall become a human being. Suffer me to follow the example of the passion of my God. (St. Ignatius, 2nd century)."

If it were a fair debate between two Christians equally conversant in Holy Scripture, then perhaps St Cyril's point would have been properly refuted at the time and would not have passed down to us today as a rather pathetic effort to justify warfare. But it is with us, so let's treat it fairly and honestly (as St Cyril doubtless prays for now), while maintaining reverence for the holy man who uttered it in a tough pinch.

I will end this discussion of St. Cyril's poor exegesis with a contrary word from Sts Silouan and from his disciple Blessed Sophrony:

"The soul that has known the Lord wants to see Him within her at all times, for the Lord enters the soul in quietness and gives her peace, and bears silent witness to salvation. If the kings and rulers of the nations knew the love of God, they would never make war. War happens to us for our sins, not because of our love. The Lord created us in His love, and bade us live in love, and glorify Him. If those in high places kept the commandments of the Lord, and we obeyed them in humility, there would be great peace and gladness on earth, whereas now the whole universe suffers because of the ambition for power and absence of submission among the proud."
-St Silouan

When we read the Gospel, the reactions of Christ to what is taking place around Him astonish us. When Judas is going out to betray Him, He says, 'Today the Son of Man is glorified'. At every Liturgy we commemorate this moment, we repeat it in our consciousness. If a hostile enemy military force takes us to kill us, will we be capable of saying: 'It is today that I am glorified and that God is glorified in me'? You all know this account in the Gospel; it is the very content of our everyday life.
-Bl. Sophrony

As for the broader question whether there is ever a time that a Christian should kill, I wish it could be enough for me to simply re-articulate Christ's unambiguous command to love our enemies and be done with it, having therein refuted this notion entirely. However I realize the subject deserves far greater treatment. While I believe this broader question of 'violence' is actually overwhelmingly simple, I am used to everyone trying to point out that it's all very complex, difficult, a "gray area". Since this majority includes Orthodox Christians I respect greatly, my head swims at the task of presenting all the angles and arguments I could take in disagreement. Again, I believe the case is overwhelmingly in my favour, and very easy to make. It becomes tedious to repeat this list. I will make a beginning anyway, in brief.

1) "Love your enemies."

It's a matter of very simple obedience to Christ's commandment. As mentioned, this is a high rung on the ladder of the beatitudes, and a high mark on our path to theosis-- it wont be easy.

"Peacemaking" and "love of enemies" are both directly linked to "sonship" by the Son Himself, indicating that our love of enemies must be a "peacemaking" love. One cannot make peace with violence, at the very least not with the human being one is currently plunging his sword into. Where else in the scriptures that describe "Christian Love" one locates permission to kill the object of our love, I do not know (though St Augustine seemed to). If we find it, let's be sure not to let the 'prochioce' or 'euthanasia' camps know about it.

2) My patron Saint, Basil the Great, has clearly shown us that killing even defensively in warfare is a sin.

He distinguishes it from murder-- of course it's different to kill under orders in defense as a soldier rather than unlawfully out of rage, hate, or some other evil passion. Nevertheless this is not the key point, which is that killing does still always separate us from Christ making our hands "unclean," and barring us from Communion. Why, as Orthodox Christians who teach that salvation is perfect union with God, would we ever make a case for committing sin under any circumstances, as soldiers must do if they kill? Nonviolence has certainly had a strong presence in the Life of the Church, even if we have far strayed from it. The spiritual danger of soldiering has been stated even more strongly elsewhere, in Canon 14 of Hippolytus in the fourth century for example, which states:
A Christian is not to become a soldier. A Christian must not become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is not to partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God.

3) Dont slash, bomb, or shoot Holy Icons.

Killing human beings is Iconoclasm. I dont understand why this point is not more salient for Orthodox Christians. I do not understand why the theological doctrine of the Imago Dei is so persuasive in (right) defense of the human unborn but not in defense of human enemies.

4) Do as your Father does.

Not only does our Father in Heaven love the unrighteous as he loves the righteous, but our fathers in the priesthood are forbidden to kill-- even in self-defense.
Is this not as an example for all the faithful to follow? Or is there a separate morality for the priesthood? Are only the priests called to theosis?

5) Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

Theosis.
I disagree with the pervasive fallback argument Christians always seem to take that the 'ideal' is not to be 'normative'. If we're talking moral philosophy here I take the point. But we're not-- we, philosophizing like fishermen, simply take Christ's word and consider perfection normative for the Orthodox Christian.
How can it not be? Christ is the norm. His humanity is the only true humanity; any departure from this is a falsehood, a non-existence. Not only does it miss the mark but it fails ontologically! Only what is perfect truly exists. Our only aspiration is to become the saints we all are.
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust... Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
-- Matt. 5:44-48

6) At least *strive* for perfection.

I do actually understand why people, good and virtuous christian people, kill under difficult circumstances (say in warfare). It is exactly how I understand why the same sorts of people (i.e. good ones) can fail at their marriages, divorce, and even remarry (in direct disobedience to Christ's command). He said it Himself: it is because our hearts are hard.
This, exactly, is why we become soldiers and kill our enemies in warfare and other difficult circumstances. I would no sooner demand an Orthodox soldier leave his vocation than demand a remarried man leave his wife! Moses did the right thing-- make concessions for the good of person's immediate situation and future life.
But do we then take care to advise our young betrothed couples looking into their matrimonial future to, "remember now, the Church DOES allow for divorces, so if this doesn't work out then you are allowed to divorce. And remarry. A few times even. Keep this in mind as you come together to be married."
Of course not.
This is what I feel you are trying to do by making some sort of room for killing in warfare. "Yes, we know we should love our enemies, but facing hardship dont worry! You can disobey Christ and kill your enemies. Dont forget the Church permits you to be a soldier and even to kill if need be."
No.
We should teach the ideal as normative (for as a friend says Orthodox 'ethics' are nothing other than good farming techniques-- you can learn from the Church the best possible way to prepare the ground of your heart for the best possible yield of good works. Of course you need not apply all that you've learned, but then expect less fruits.) As with divorce, when warfare inevitably breaks out and good men kill, we speak honestly about this being a failure rooted in the hardness of our hearts, but in economia also offer healing and a path of recovery into the Christian life.

7) Read and obey Holy Scripture.

“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
--Jn 18:36

Put on the full armor of God... [O]ur struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God... (my emphasis)
--Eph 6:11-13

Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your passions that war in your members?
--Js 4:1

To be clear, I am suggesting that anything short of absolute nonviolent love even of our worst enemies- both personal and national- is disobedience that divides us from perfect union with Christ.

always asking your prayers;

-Mark Basil

Selling Myself

2010-04-22T21:48:00.001-07:00

I'm preparing my application to the SFU PDP program-- to get my Teaching degree.

I am trying to strike a healthy balance between presenting myself as I am and selling myself as they want me to be.
It's hard.

"You have to sell yourself. Dont feel bad about it, everyone has to do it. Just sell yourself."
A new teacher gave me this advice recently.
We've all been told this before, preparing for some interview.

Yuck.
This is the world we have to operate in.
Yuck.

I Also Oppose Torture

2010-04-11T22:09:00.000-07:00

Ten months ago I questioned moral renunciation of torture, without moral renunciation of killing, here:

Christ is in our midst!

Dear Fr Jonathan;
I really appreciated this post. However I think it is a strange thing to object to torture while still condoning killing.
Of course war is inevitable, and of course governments must do what the world asks them to do. However, against the grain of mainstream interpretation of Rom. 13 to condone the use of the sword I think it does not at all suggest this. (have you encountered this interpretation in the Orthodox Fathers? I am genuinely curious as I know it is ubiquitous in the 'West', where great effort has been made to support a punitive justice system and the making of war in defense of the material life of those people we identify as closer to us than others).
St Paul states matter of fact what the governing powers can and will do-- use lethal force to enforce the law. And this authority is God's servant; what else could it be? For God is sovereign and all things are according to His providence. He will likewise use natural disaster and any calamity as an agent of His wrath, and work all thing for the good of those who believe.
And we see how Christ Himself did submit to this authority, in the silence leading up to His passion.
A christian submits to all who would seek to oppress us, going the extra mile and giving more than is asked of us.
But if the worldly authority St Paul tells us to submit to is a more or less evil Roman empire, responsible for the oppression of himself and the dealer of death to our Lord, then it seems to me our submission is not based on the 'ostensive justice' of the authority. It seems more plausible to me that it is simply part of the Christian way of loving one's enemy; the Roman authority was a brutal enemy of the Way, yet even it is within God's providential right hand, and the persons who are within it may be wone over by our witness and our love (though this isn't the point; the point is that we willingly participate in Christ's passion as co-conquerors of death by death).

I do not see why we must take Rom 13 as anyway condoning the violence of government. This worldly authority is utilized by God but we as Christians abhor the shedding of blood. How can we be iconoclasts with respect to human persons?
If killing is *always* a sin (as I have been catechized by my patron saint), how can it ever be right for a Christian to condone or participate in it? Yes, many of us still will as a fallen matter of fact. We who do have not achieved theosis. There may be divorce and remarriage too but this is because our hearts are hard. We do not 'support' it, we allow it. Why do we not teach the same thing about state violence?
How can we who serve the resurrected King, ever support the dealing of death? Every Christian will do as his heart dictates; if we are not ready to love our enemies we will kill them, and we must repent and receive God's forgiveness. But this is a failure, is it not? Never advocated, only recognized as inevitable and dealt with pastoraly and with God's economia.
If priest cannot shed blood ever, does this not set the bar for all the faithful if we would be perfect? Or is theosis only for the clergy and not the faithful? It really makes no sense if it is not suppose to be normative (for the ideal is normative; perfection is normative)

As for St John the Forerunner's response to the soldiers; is he not the greatest of men but still least in the kingdom, being last of the OT prophets? He had "heard that it was said..." but did not know that Christ "says unto you" love of enemy is the condition for Sonship. He did not know that our warfare is *not* carnal, but with principalities and powers.
And of course a Christian can be a soldier and progress along a path of salvation, but ultimately he must leave this 'vocation' that requires the dealing of death if he would be perfect. Is this not clear from the ladder of the beatitudes? "Be pefect..." Is this not the case with St George and all of our 'warrior saints'? None of them are glorified by God because they efficiently shed the blood of others, but only because of their subsequent witness through the shedding of their own blood.
What would we make of St Martin of Tours, who renounced the violence of his worldly vocation?

It seems to me undeniable that we cannot love our enemies with Christian love, with the love Christ shows his enemies, while killing them. Shouldn't this be the end of the debate about christian participation in violence? This is always sin; how can it be right-- i.e. an act of godly perfection-- to sin under any circumstance?
If we would obey Christ's command to love our enemies, then we must not kill or condone killing. The governments of the world will carry on, war will carry on. Sin is inevitable. But we cannot condone it in any way.

Please forgive me for my boldness.
-Mark Basil

Posted by: Mark Basil | June 11, 2009 at 04:39 AM

[Fr Jonathan's thoughful response which can be found on his page here]
[I respond to his response below:]

Blessed Feast Day of the Forerunner's Nativity!

Thank you for your response Fr Jonathan.
It appears you are correct, we agree more than I realized. I'm sorry to have overstated the case, and am grateful for your clarification.

Still I wonder if we do yet disagree substantially? (I am very young and genuinely desire to acquire the mind of the Church on this, and believe I have not yet certainly on the topic of violence I am still confused. I pray daily that "this mind be in me which is in Christ Jesus...").

I think the disagreement is in emphasis. You chose to state, "I am not a pacifist, but...", while I feel the corrective needed is in the opposite direction. "I am a pacifist, however..."
This is because in my experience, few Orthodox realize how contrary the gospel is to the use of violence. Governments are extremely powerful 'alternative (to the gospel) influences' and the interests of Empire-- the powers that be-- will always need to persuade the masses that 'violence in defense of justice' is a noble cause. The interests of governing powers are always threatened by nonviolence, and so the overwhelming influence of national socialization will be overwhelmingly in the direction of legitimizing violence.
This seems reason enough to push in the other direction, "I am a Christian and so a pacifist," and let our distinctive nuance follow, "but...".
If killing is always a sin, why are we not pacifists?

This is similar to my feelings about divorce and remarriage (the latter absolutely prohibited by our Lord in the scriptures), which is to say that we teach divorce and especially remarriage is always a sin, yet realizing the hardness of our hearts when it happens we find the best way to deal with it in the hopes that through repentance grace may abound still.
As with divorce and remarriage, I feel our current culture is extremely inclined and socialized to normalize the sin, and as a corrective more emphasis should be placed on the absolute prohibition, letting economia (and mercy) follow when human weakness triumphs.

"The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [at $651.2 billion for 2009]"
(from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)
Again it seems clear that there is an overwhelming bias in one direction, and in this light the prophetic emphasis of the gospel needs to be stated sharply in the opposite direction; "we are Apostolic Christians, we are pacifists." Again it seems to me that the absolute prohibition of the shedding of blood placed on the liturgical preisthood (under any circumstances-- including self-defense, defense of one's family, defense of one's nation), can only be understood as the Christian ideal-- a pacifist ideal.

The nuance should be, I think, in clarifying the height of this calling, and never becoming ideological or moralistic about it. Christ directly identifies both "peacemaking" and "love of enemies" with Sonship, and the perfection of our Father in heaven. It seems clear to me in this light that love of enemies is directly tied to nonviolence (we cannot make peace with violence, contrary popular propaganda). And yet equally clear that this is one of the hardest commandments-- one of the highest indications of theosis is to love our (national, not just personal) enemies as dearly as we love our friends and family. So few will have the strength to show forth this nonviolent love. (I know without question that I kill my enemies daily in my own heart).
But if the Cross is intrinsically nonviolent, then the gospel is necessarily nonviolent, and we , with nuance, economia, and mercy for the weakness of immature hearts such as my own.

I am also puzzled by your reference to state violence as "involuntary sin." I guess it just seems strange to consider intentionally killing someone, as involuntary?
Involuntary because of a 'role' one must play? But then I ask, why *must* a Christan play this role? Why *must* a Christian be a soldier? Why would we not clearly dissuade the faithful from a vocation that may require sin? If a person persists, then of course he may be a soldier and like many others advance along a path of salvation far beyond the likes of me. But this is only ever *inspite* of his vocation, isn't it? Being a soldier is only ever a hindrance to perfection, love of enemies, if killing is always sin.

You asked if I think St John the Forerunner would have told the soldiers to cease being soldiers, if he "knew the gospel."
I dont know, but I'm inclined to say No, I dont.
Yet I would hesitate to make very much of this. A few verses before he only told tax collectors (real crooks of that day) to not overcollect. This seems a very meager corrective to their profession (what about repaying the countless victims of their past extortion, as the tax collector who encountered Christ the Way was inspired to do?). But change is slow, and a small step can set a heart on the right path, to prepare the way. I would not tell every soldier that he must quit his job, either.
I would say that it seems risky to extrapolate too much from the Forerunner's silence.

I am especially interested in the witness of the Church before the conversion of St Constantine. Not surprisingly. :)
For example I have read hear (and seen in before):

Killing in war had been forbidden completely in earlier canons, such as Canon 14 of Hippolytus in the fourth century, which states:

A Christian is not to become a soldier. A Christian must not become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is not to partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God.

Here, in the early church, it is very clear that there is incompatibility with soldiering and the gospel (I feel this is already clear in St Paul's exposition that we do not make war according to the flesh, and St James' comments that war are only ever a result of our passions). I wish this were preached and taught more clearly in the Orthodox Church today.
It does not seem unreasonable to me that the gospel has been very much marginalized on this point, since Empire (through the centuries) has had its powerful influence on members of the church.

I will end where I began, that we doubtless agree more than I realize. Yet does it seem to you that my position is still significantly different than yours? Why should we not state outright that we are pacifists?
Perhaps I have an axe to grind; if so may God forgive me and you too! I do seek the truth only and want to listen, though I sound like a loud noise. And I am trying to "let this mind be in me which was in Christ Jesus."
Please pray for me and I will appreciate very much your response.

The sinner;
-Mark Northey

(from Extreme Interrogation)

I am a pacifist

2010-04-11T22:04:00.001-07:00

Three years ago in the light of Pascha I wrote this comment on my favourite blog site, about pacifism:

Christ is Risen!

First, beautiful post. I think this discussion detracts from it's beauty sadly.
However I have to say something.

I am a pacifist, and so have something quite different to say.
Owen I respect you very much. And I have grown disappointed with your position expressed here.

This is why:
When we resort to tactics which are essentially the same as those of our enemies we have already lost.
Owen you were referring to ‘barbarism’, but I think this applies to the dealing of death in itself. Is the gospel fundamentally about turning barbarians into civilized persons? No. It is fundamentally the triumph of life over death, the turning of dead to living. This is the rule and reign of God; this is the essential mark of Christian ‘civilization’. We live and make to live.

The sole function of the military is to kill... War is politics by another means, and those means are dispensing death.
Well put Don.
A remarkable juxtaposition to what you would pronounce with joy less than two weeks from this utterance—two days ago you sang, “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!”
Do you not see the absurdity and incompatibility of your position in this light?

Owen and Don.
I dont know what you mean by “effeminate men.”
I am confident however that by your meaning, I am one of them. I am also confident that Don would think as much of anyone who would say we should love our enemies instead of killing them; anyone who would not resist an evildoer; anyone who, should his companion try to defend him with the sword from injustice, would rebuke his friend and choose the path of meekness instead.
Are the effeminate those who believe Christ’s strength is perfected in weakness? Those who turn the other cheek rather than striking back? Those who abhor the shedding of blood? Those who leave vengeance to the Lord?

But of course, as a pacifist I oversimplify.
Owen, I think I know something of your heart and you are not Don.
But this is surely it—pacifism is naive. Political conflict is complex; Justice is complex. Far too complex for so simple a response as pacifism.
In the last I think you are mistaken.
I think the way of nonviolence is the only true way of the Cross.
Here we deeply disagree. (remembering Lewis you want to say, “not so deeply.” Yes, so deeply).
And here, I believe, David meets Goliath. You of course are not Goliath and I am no David. Pacifism is David, against the witness of majority Christendom, and your thought. (And for the analogy I’ll be quick to remember that David was flawed (but for my point, then, more quick to add that’s why not he but shalom man was fit to build the Lord’s house)).
Not perfect, but the only option after God’s own heart.

I’ll play the pacifist then and ask, “what would Jesus do?”
No really. Have we any idea? If he faced the complexities of injustice, oppression, religious and political corruption?
Is there any way we can know what Jesus would do if His enemies were wicked and sinful men? If they would make war against Him and His Kingdom, what would Jesus do?
If only there were some way to know!
If His enemies were flesh and blood, what would Jesus do?
If He really were a king, how would he conquer?
What would God do with us, while we were still his enemies?

And so then, Who is Jesus?
How can we be Sons of God? What is the measure of perfection?

Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!

peace;
-Basil

(from Lazarus and War.)

Fantastic Friday

2010-04-10T00:52:00.001-07:00

Christ is Risen!

I watched "Fantastic Mr Fox" for the second time tonight, with some friends.
My son who's eight has seen it with me; he said he liked it (more than I expected while watching it with him). Wes Anderson is probably my favourite director but he only makes adult-content movies.

I love it even more the second time round.

When a key antagonist is killed he "finds redemption in the end." Mr Fox says, though, "sure he found redemption but he's still just another dead rat in the gutter."
I think this is keenly honest.

Maybe not a movie for young kids.
Tonight there were two kids with us- kids who watch Star Wars and LOtR... their parents, though, found this movie a bit much. Too much lying for mom; dad didn't put his finger on what he disapproved of.
interesting.
meh.

-MB

Two Swords

2010-04-08T20:49:00.000-07:00

Christ is risen!

On my way home from work I stopped at my favourite thrift shop. Usually I forget what I need but enjoy perusing this dusty maze anyhow.
I saw a vase stuffed with a few umbrellas-- aha! I need an umbrella!

I wandered some more and perusing the cd case, regretted there were no Lorena McKennit's for sale. Wandering to the front display, where more expensive and exotic things face the window to entice passers by, I saw them:
Two authentic Spanish Swords.
Dammit, really?!

$95 each.
Sheesh. Impossible to justify right?
So I wandered back and found a Modest Mouse cd, and an old Sarah McLaughlen cd.
but why not at least ask about the price?
I've wanted a real sword since I was a kid. Swords are very cool. I bought two machetes in Costa Rica half a decade ago... pretty close.
So I asked- and yes! He gave them both to me for $140.

So now I own two swords.
Damn.

I am a pacifist by the way.
I think this blog will be lots about that.

-Mark Basil
(PS I left the cd's and forgot the umbrella too)