Orthodoxy and War

[Light of the East]

I have read a couple of Orthodox sites regarding war and the inevitable result of it, which is killing people. The consensus opinion is that to kill another human being can bring destruction in our soul, which needs remediation by ascesis, the Sacraments, and counseling by a spiritual father, even if the killing was in self-defense. Many of the saints, some of whom were former soldiers, accepted death rather than fighting back against oppressors.

Here's the question: if this is true (which I accept as good teaching) why then did God send His people into whole towns to slaughter the wicked. Why did He order them into war? Was not the same principle of soul-damage existing then as it does now?

Look at King David. Saul heard the chant "Saul has killed his thousands, but David his ten thousands" and was livid with jealousy. Yet the Scriptures state that David was a "man after God's own heart." and apparently, seeing that he penned the Psalms we use in our worship, the act of killing didn't affect him in the way that Orthodoxy claims a soul is harmed by the act of killing, even in self-defense.

Explain?

 

[FenderTL5]

I wish I could remember the wording but it was part of a recent homily in our parish. The gist; it depends entirely on the individual, their motivation, and condition of their heart on whether we can be involved militarily. For some, the motivation is pure and without sin, for another it would be akin to murder.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have read a couple of Orthodox sites regarding war and the inevitable result of it, which is killing people. The consensus opinion is that to kill another human being can bring destruction in our soul, which needs remediation by ascesis, the Sacraments, and counseling by a spiritual father, even if the killing was in self-defense. Many of the saints, some of whom were former soldiers, accepted death rather than fighting back against oppressors.

Here's the question: if this is true (which I accept as good teaching) why then did God send His people into whole towns to slaughter the wicked. Why did He order them into war? Was not the same principle of soul-damage existing then as it does now?

Look at King David. Saul heard the chant "Saul has killed his thousands, but David his ten thousands" and was livid with jealousy. Yet the Scriptures state that David was a "man after God's own heart." and apparently, seeing that he penned the Psalms we use in our worship, the act of killing didn't affect him in the way that Orthodoxy claims a soul is harmed by the act of killing, even in self-defense.

Explain?

in a nutshell, this was prior to the Incarnation and Israel had to struggle to stay pure of idolatry. God works with what He has, and what He has is us.

 

[Light of the East]

in a nutshell, this was prior to the Incarnation and Israel had to struggle to stay pure of idolatry. God works with what He has, and what He has is us.

So your answer is that the Incarnation and what came after that (death, burial, and glorious Resurrection in which by death He conquered death) changed everything?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So your answer is that the Incarnation and what came after that (death, burial, and glorious Resurrection in which by death He conquered death) changed everything?

yep

 

[Light of the East]

yep

I'm having a problem with that answer. It infers to me that the souls of those in the Old Testament were somehow ontologically different than the souls in the New Testament. That theosis and holiness were not a part of the OT, but now are a part of the NT. That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Lukaris]

Yet the Lord affirms the law and prophets in the commands to love God & neighbor, the golden rule, ( Matthew 7:12 , Matthew 22:36-40 )& says the law, prophets, and psalms spoke of Him ( Luke 24:44-45 ).

As far as understanding the Old Testament to the New, one approach might be to read the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. Barnabas concludes with the preaching of the 2 ways ( life and death). Didache begins on this very same point which I think has its origin in Deuteronomy 30:11-20.

I know this does not address the issue of war though.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm having a problem with that answer. It infers to me that the souls of those in the Old Testament were somehow ontologically different than the souls in the New Testament. That theosis and holiness were not a part of the OT, but now are a part of the NT. That just doesn't make sense to me.

no, because theosis is possible because of the Incarnation, and is offered to all because of the Resurrection. this includes those who died even as pagans in the OT.

 

[Light of the East]

no, because theosis is possible because of the Incarnation, and is offered to all because of the Resurrection. this includes those who died even as pagans in the OT.

So taking what you said, that it is available even to pagans in the OT, then the wars and killings in the OT would indeed have a similar negative effect on their souls. That was the point of the Orthodox posts I read, that such violence malforms the soul.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So taking what you said, that it is available even to pagans in the OT, then the wars and killings in the OT would indeed have a similar negative effect on their souls. That was the point of the Orthodox posts I read, that such violence malforms the soul.

it does, but God can overcome any negative effect on the soul if we allow it.

 

[buzuxi02]

War back then was on behalf of your entire community and their survival. These were collectivist tribes and a protracted conflict meant centuries of blood feuds. This was the common understanding of war. Fight to Win or cease to exist.
The War of Troy and the destruction of the city through a Trojan horse, was one ancient account of this same method of warfare just more organized. In modern times there was the massacre in Rwanda between two rival tribes. And yet we used this method of killing our opponents 'civillians' just 70years ago inspite of our belief in individualism. In WW2 with the annhilation of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki no concern for the elderly, women or children or even the wildlife (the entire purpose was to kill this demographic off to make the men not have a reason to fight on). This ancient warfare did not always require complete slaughter, some entire populations were, enslaved and sold off, sometimes your tribe was simply banished and exiled enmasse. This latter "best case scenario" was used in the Armenian genocide. The Treaty of Luasanne forced all Rum Christians out of Turkey and into Greece and forced all Turkish Muslims into Turkey in a population swap.

Our current beliefs about war are totally naive and simplistic. We actually believe we no longer use such tactics . We do worse things today except we apologize and call it accidental collateral damage, like when a drone mistakenly incinerates an entire wedding party. In other words to explain why they did back then what they did just ask a modern day military planner on his strategies. The same explanation will apply.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yet many Christian denominations (including Orthodox) have chaplains serving those that may in fact kill others. There must be a "just" war, an allowable defeat of evil (ie. Hitler).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yet many Christian denominations (including Orthodox) have chaplains serving those that may in fact kill others. There must be a "just" war, an allowable defeat of evil (ie. Hitler).

as an Orthodox chaplain candidate, we serve whoever needs pastoral care. there is no Orthodox understanding of a just war. there may be just people in combat doing the best they can, but war itself is always evil.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

as an Orthodox chaplain candidate, we serve whoever needs pastoral care. there is no Orthodox understanding of a just war. there may be just people in combat doing the best they can, but war itself is always evil.

I understand, but then is it permissible for an Orthodox Christian to serve/kill in a war, knowing beforehand it could happen and then repent of it, even if destroying evil? What pastoral care can you give to a person you are saying is doing evil? Communion? Last rites? Forgiveness for knowingly doing evil? just playing DA here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I understand, but then is it permissible for an Orthodox Christian to serve/kill in a war, knowing beforehand it could happen and then repent of it, even if destroying evil? What pastoral care can you give to a person you are saying is doing evil? Communion? Last rites? Forgiveness for knowingly doing evil? just playing DA here.

permissible yes, because it can be necessary in our fallen condition. pastoral care would be confession, counsel, prayers, etc. with penance in mind.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

permissible yes, because it can be necessary in our fallen condition. pastoral care would be confession, counsel, prayers, etc. with penance in mind.

Necessary evil permissible?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Necessary evil permissible?

yes

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

yes

Found this on the net authored by an Orthodox Chaplain:
If war is always so heinous, so evil, so despicable, yet we may have no alternatives other than war and a worse "choice," then it must be a "necessary," though "lesser," evil. But that is a pacifist premise with a justifiable war conclusion! You cannot rationally invoke a pacifist premise that all war is evil and then act upon it positively--at least not without misunderstanding the logic of absolute pacifism, which has its own vitality and integrity, and also seriously misconstruing, and, I think, distorting the justifiable war tradition.

Here's the crux of the problem. When you allow an evil as a necessary condition for a good end, when and where does such evil stop? If you allow evil "x," why not evil "y"? Anyone can construct a situation where he says, "Well, this is necessary to achieve my good ends." We're left with a very flawed morality, based solely on intentionality. That's not what the Orthodox moral tradition teaches. Instead, Orthodoxy provides a far more integrated, cohesive, and coherent understanding of good means--or at least morally neutral means--to good ends.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Found this on the net authored by an Orthodox Chaplain:
If war is always so heinous, so evil, so despicable, yet we may have no alternatives other than war and a worse "choice," then it must be a "necessary," though "lesser," evil. But that is a pacifist premise with a justifiable war conclusion! You cannot rationally invoke a pacifist premise that all war is evil and then act upon it positively--at least not without misunderstanding the logic of absolute pacifism, which has its own vitality and integrity, and also seriously misconstruing, and, I think, distorting the justifiable war tradition.

Here's the crux of the problem. When you allow an evil as a necessary condition for a good end, when and where does such evil stop? If you allow evil "x," why not evil "y"? Anyone can construct a situation where he says, "Well, this is necessary to achieve my good ends." We're left with a very flawed morality, based solely on intentionality. That's not what the Orthodox moral tradition teaches. Instead, Orthodoxy provides a far more integrated, cohesive, and coherent understanding of good means--or at least morally neutral means--to good ends.

except that is not a pacifist premise. it is the Christian premise. God is and gives life, death of any kind is evil. and the reason we can allow evil "x" and not "y" is because that is what God has allowed in our fallen state.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

except that is not a pacifist premise. it is the Christian premise. God is and gives life, death of any kind is evil. and the reason we can allow evil "x" and not "y" is because that is what God has allowed in our fallen state.

God has allowed through free will?