www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall "Just War" Theology in the East?

Sorry for previously starting this inquiry in the wrong topic area...since Town Hall is the catch-all, maybe someone here can help me find out if there is any popular eastern theology or approach to the moral implications of war, perhaps parallel to Augustine's articulation of the "just war" theory. To what extent are his parameters acknowledged/accepted among eastern Christians?

Dear Prodigal,

Well, Augustine is not exactly Patristic "flavour of the First Millennium" for Eastern Christians.

Many Orthodox refer to him as "Blessed Augustine" and see his perspectives on Original Sin, Grace and Human Will at variance with the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great and the Gregories.

I don't think the Eastern Churches have ever actually articulated a "theology of war" but they have established certain practices when war occurs.

First of all, prayers are offered for peace and for the victims of war, as well as for the soldiers.

St Nicholas Kassatkin, Russian missionary to and Enlightener of Japan, actually publicly prayed for the Japanese soldiers who were on their way to fight his own people in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905.

Tsar Nicholas II later decorated Kassatkin for his diplomatic actions.

There is a whole series of blessings for soldiers who are given special metallic icons of St George and other military patrons to protect them in battle.

There is even the "soldier's Cross," a simple, brass Cross with the words of Psalm 67 written on the back.

In addition, Russian and other Orthodox soldiers are given copies of Psalm 90 to keep on their person - some have it written out on their belts.

Apart from the blessings and prayers and the general "we stand with you" attitude of the Eastern Churches, it has no theology of a just war.

Such is nonexistent in a religion where we are taught to turn the other cheek.

Alex

Of course, there is the example of the Holy Passion-bearers , Sts Boris and Gleb who refused to defend themselves unto death instead of shedding blood.

Dear Brian,

I don't think the U.S. Marines would be interested!

Alex

Alex,

My dad (Memory Eternal!) was a Marine Drill Instructor (WWII) but thank God, he did not raise his family that way and tolerated his socialistic Eastern-loving son

Dear Brian,

I'm related to a U.S. Marine myself!

They're tough cookies, all of them . . .

It's a good thing they're on our side!

So I think that the difference between West and East on this matter is that the Western Church would allow for a "Just War."

The Eastern Church sees an armed conflict and says it's "just war." And it prays for it to end.

Alex

As a former Marine tank commander I am eternally thankful and proud of how we were trained to use the utmost restraint and not revel 'a la John Wayne' at the misery and brutality of our profession. More oftentimes than not a Marine would suffer injury and privation to himself and his men before ever bringing his destructive power to bear on someone unless it was unquestioningly necessary; even on his enemy. There are, of course, exceptions - but most are myth and not true.

A Marine's pride always comes from the restraint he shows - not the power he wields.

Dear Novocilman,

Well, I fly the Marine flag on your Veterans' Day!

Except, of course, if my uncle, a former member of the U.S. Air Force, is around, in which case I fly his flag!

Alex

Dear friends,

Leaving the justification of this war aside I have to disagree with a few of Remie's former comments.

She said:

"Saddam Hussein was perfectly acceptable for the New World Order as long as he defended the existence his artificial state and made war against the fundamentalist Iran and kept repression against the "communist" kurds, but is no longer acceptable for it now when he started to deffend himself against the West.

and:

"The crime of Saddam which is not forgiven by the NWO is not his infamous rule against the poor people of Iraq who suffer all kind of tortures under his evil government; it is his independence. The war against Iraq and the devastation that we expect against that country will work as an example for all the regimmes of the world: independent nations are not tolerated."

reply:
This is not true. Although I agree with you that the grounds on which the U.S. considers nations friend or foe are questionable, I don't think your description of how Iraq became our foe is correct. Iraq invaded another nation and there was reason to believe Iraq would continue this pattern in the region. It is analogous to stopping Hitler before he conquered all of mainland Europe. We, this time, stopped an aggressor in his tracks. So, I don't think it was for his "independence" but rather his aggression that we originally went to war with him.

As for this time, I'm not sure. I'm not privy to U.S. intellegence so I can't say if they have justifications for this war or not. Time will tell.

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

There is a tempation to use all these cases of "aggression" as "little Munichs" or as analogous to Pre-WW II appeasement (carried by a Conservative British Government by the way) This idea of stopping other "Munichs" led US Foreign Policy into the "Domino Theory" which ended in the debacle of Vietnam.

We should be VERY careful before labeling Saddam Hussein another HItler. It is historically inaccurate and can lead to the mistakes in language George Orwell among others reminded us of (Newspeak) Anthony Eden used this slogan to justify the British invasion of Egypt in 1956 "Nassar is another Hitler")

Dear Brethren,

Let's remember the universal canon which was originally a response by Basil the Great to someone asking about penance for Christian soldiers who killed other soldiers in battle and whether or not it should be considered murder.

Basil said that although the fathers did not see it as murder and did not insist upon a special penance, he (Basil) felt that such men should abstain from the eucharist for three years.

Basil's response/the subsequent canon gives us a good indicator of eastern thought regarding war. It is part of being caught up in original sin. Killing a man in battle begs for a period of understanding and repentance, but it is not willful murder (a twenty year canonical penance). [A penance is adjusted according to the circumstance, or from another angle, a canon is just a ruler]

While serving as a naval officer, I used to informally educate my men and women regarding the stipulations of the Geneva Convention...never target non-combatants...don't kill or torture prisoners...question orders that tell you to do such things...etc. Now, much wiser, I think of this scriptural verse when imagining what additional advice I should have given to my watch and division. "As men who are caught up in an evil time, as fish who are caught up in a net."

Just War theory really has more relevance for those who have the power to decide war and peace. While war is something that will continue to happen until the Lord returns, we still should hope and expect that our leaders will discern well when to use it.

As the evangelicals often say, "Know Jesus, know peace. No Jesus, no peace."

In peace in Christ.

From the other thread:

Does anyone know why we hear so little about Osama bin Laden anymore? What is the connection between terrorism and Iraq? We've made Iraq's possession of "weapons of mass destruction" the linch pin for our war against him. Why can't we find evidence that he has some? Finally, Saudi Arabia seems a much more likely candidate for attack on the basis of support for terrorism than does Iraq. Why are they getting a pass and Iraq is under scrutiny?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Brian

There's merit to what you say. As we know, hind-sight is 20-20. The man invaded and took over another country for goodness sake! He totured the Kuwaiti's (I saw first hand where his Army did this), he used chemical weapons on his own citizens, he dumped thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf, he set hundreds of oil wells on fire, he fired scud missiles into Israel, etc. Are we to think that all he wanted was independence as Remie said?

I know the Kuwaitis are sure thankful the U.S. considered him an agressor. I was thanked personally by many of them on the streets in Kuwait. But lets not blame the big bad U.S. alone. The United Nations considered Iraq an agressor that should be stopped and so did most Arab countries who joined us in ousting him from Kuwait. Anyway you slice it Saddam is a bad guy who's hurt a lot of innocent people and brought a lot of pain and suffering to the world. Whether he's a Hitler or not, he never got the chance to prove. Thanks God.

Wm.

Also from the other thread:

...And will someone please tell me where the New World Order exists and who is its invisible head? The NWO went out of existence when Kevin Nash broke his leg. Or has he come back to lead it?

Dan Lauffer :rolleyes:

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Dan,

I respect your opinions and intelligent questions.

I'll try to answer them.

Why so little about Osama? The man is a ghost. We don't know if he is alive or dead.
Time will tell whether he is alive. We do know that his Al Quaida is active and a threat to the US, our allies and much of the world. There are other terrorist groups that target the US and others also.

Why Iraq and not the Saudis? Probably because US intelligence has incriminating
evidence against Iraq. But it's not the right time to publish that information. The US has
chosen to get UN support before taking military action. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Iraq is hiding its weapons of mass destruction in unexpected places.

Sincerely,

Paul