ORTHODOX ETHOS ON WARS

The terrorist attack in New York (11 September 2001) -- an event that one could not have foreseen even in their wildest nightmares -- did not only prove that no Superpower of our world is invulnerable and, therefore, a reliable and responsible world leader, but also led to tragic consequences, with a heap of innocent victims piling up on the altar of the Moloch of expedience.

Thus we arrived at the insolent invasion of Afghanistan and of Iraq, where we witnessed once again the hecatombs of the innocent victims, in the same way we had done so not long ago in Kosovo.

For the core of the problem can be located in the wasted innocent victims of Iraq, of Serbia and of New York.

Without looking for the need to make comparative compensations, it is still possible for us to examine these events in parallel; for it is only in this way that we will be able to avoid them in the future -- if we have some shreds of “humanity” left, that is. Since the annihilation of the innocent victims continues, however, it seems that some do not only possess no “humanity” but not even the political ability (perhaps not even the will) to avoid it. On the contrary, geopolitical, strategic and oil considerations (the re-shaping of the Middle East) have led to the political exploitation of the terrorism attacks. Thus, one act of terrorism that is covered under the cloak of international justice enlists its allies by pressure in order to stifle the “rebellious” terrorism of other interests, resulting in the immediate danger of a new international conflict, that according to some political analysts has already begun: the “Judaeo-Christian” West (according to S. Huntington’s theories) versus the Islamic East; even though Islam has already percolated the multi-cultural West, and the borders of civilisations are difficult to discern, at least geographically.

It is not the first time that politics succeeded in mobilising (institutional) Orthodoxy from her “spiritual head”, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to a new “crusade” – the term was used by the President of the United States – to fight off terrorism (in one of its shapes of course), by cooperation with the religions of the world. This enforced inter-religious cooperation -- that could eventually be placed within the framework of a New Age movement towards a future “Pan-religion” – defines the problem and thus the need (since this is about religions and not political powers) of the possibility of a congruency of the religious bodies, in order to enable mutual cooperation.

Orthodoxy (when she is true Orthodoxy, i.e. Patristic) can never, for example, stand by the side of the Powerful just because he is powerful. She has to stand by the Just, i.e. by the side of the innocent victims of the entire world. Therefore the following question begs an answer: what possibilities does Orthodoxy offer for such “conscriptions to war”? What will she have to face?

Orthodoxy today is placed – once again – between the two opposing sides (the Western and the Eastern); sides though that (as it is proved once again) coincide in their idealised (i.e. politicised) religions. (Recall that Orthodoxy is not a religion). “Jihaad”, no matter what shades it may appear by over time, never stops (once the religious fanaticism of its followers has been warmed up, being the most fearful of all, as it puts on the clothes of a divine mission) to assume the mantle of “the holy war against the infidel” and thus to coincide with the “holy revenge” (or holy war) of the opposite Western side, a revenge that has often consecrated fascist methods of barbarism in its bloody past.

The common element is evident: the legalisation of violence either for the enforcement of politicised religion or for the enforcement of religiocised politics. The result is the same in both cases.

After all, Western Christianity has created deep theological presuppositions for the consecration of violence as early as the 11th century AD. It is the “theology” of Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1100) “on the satisfaction (satisfactio) of the Divine Justice”. God sends His Son, the Christ, into the world, not out of love for man (Jn. 3:16, Rom. 5:8) but in order to be satisfied for the offence human sin has caused Him! The Western feudal – racist – knightly law was thus elevated to God (idolatry), Who is not considered any more as a Father “full of mercy and philanthropy”, but as a feudal-tyrant and punisher, Who continually asks for revenge (the Calvinist mindset that formed the setting for American Christianity.)

This is the mentality of Western Man, something evidently shown by the Crusaders: the fury of the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade of 1204 AD against Orthodoxy, made, according to historian Victor Frankl, the warlike fury of Islam seem almost benevolent … The “theology” of “the death of God” is fruit of this mentality. The accumulated rage of the Islamic community has been expressed since in the form of blind hostility against the Western side, which however is not dealt by the West with a spirit of justice (by apprehension and conviction of the true guilty of charge instead of using Nazi-like retaliations).

Whenever and wherever Orthodoxy in the West stays captive to such a mentality and thus cooperates in any way to such reasoning, promoting war in the name of divine justice, it is not any more Orthodoxy but a pathetic misprint, similar to those of the online Evangelical-like magazine Orthodoxy Today or some of Regina Orthodox Press's nationalist books in circulation that try to justify the wars of the United States of America from an Orthodox point of view.

Orthodoxy knows, of course, about “violence” and applies it in its strictest form. The language of her holy texts is totally “revolutionary” (cf. e.g. the Hymnography of the Resurrection) and damning towards injustices and usurpations (cf. James 5). Her violence (bia) however is not turned to the outside, towards our fellowman, but to the Devil and to the inside, inwards, towards our inner self. “The kingdom [i.e. grace] of God biazetai [suffereth violence] and biastai [violent people] take it by force” (Mt. 11:12). It is bia, as the ascetic-neptic action of Orthodoxy proves, that is being applied upon our rebellious and perverse nature, upon our instincts, in order that they do not tyrannize man and oppress him. Through this self-biasmos (self-effort) is man freed towards the uncreated Divine Grace. Only this way does man eventually become “temple of God”, i.e. a Christian (cf. Rom. 8:9 et al.). Only this way can terrorism be cracked down. Not with the bombing of innocent people.

This is the Orthodoxy of our Saints. For this reason it does not produce terrorists of various shapes or forms, but Martyrs. The terrorist, of any kind, biazei (causes violence against) the others and annihilates them, even if he commits suicide in the end and dies with them (known as a kamikazi). Here is where the Jewish words “let my psyche [in this case life, existence] die together with the foreigners [Philistines]” of Judges 16:30 find their place.

The Martyr wins by his self-sacrifice which is offered for the others.

The New Martyrs of the Ottoman Empire were the most dynamic and effective “revolutionaries”; not with the gun, by with the Cross. The Martyr of Orthodoxy wins over the tyrants of the world with his sacrifice, proving thus that they are not forces impregnable; and at the same time emboldens the others to confront them in the same way. This is what the Synaxaria of our Saints teach us.

Orthodoxy does not know of holy wars either. War is always a satanic situation. Throughout Her History, our Saints accepted the defensive and liberating struggles only “out of extreme economy” (this was the theological setting for the Hellenic Revolution of 1821), as a self-sacrifice for the others (cf. Jn 15:13); but, whereas those who participated in such wars were honoured as heroes, they were often not allowed to become clerics if they survived, having been murderers, and, regardless of personal circumstances, all of them passed through a long period of repentance.

Elder Paisios (c.f. his biography by hieromonk Isaac, his Discourses (A’ – D’), and many other books in circulation) prays when he is called to the military that God does not place him in a position that he is forced to kill someone during the war. God grants this: Elder Paisios becomes a radio operator. He also explains that when he was young, and their village in Asia Minor was under threat, they would go and break the weapons of the enemy and not kill them (because it could be avoided) but send them away without shedding any blood.

We would like to bring a particular example found in an older book written for the Elder by hieromonk Christodoulos that has become a best-seller and even translated into English (Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, by hieromonk Christodoulos the Hagiorite, Holy Mountain, 1998).

Looking at the English text on p. 143 we read the following words exchanged between the Elder and one of his spiritual children:

<<- Father, we are afraid a war might break out.

- Since you are afraid, it will not happen! You should not be afraid because the biggest enemy in a war is fear, as it paralyzes the army. During the combat, when the good officers notice some soldiers being afraid, they ask them to leave so they do not influence the others as well.

Also, you should bear in mind that the one who is fighting an offensive war is always afraid, because he knows that he is not doing the right thing. Instead, the one on the defense has justice on his side and is not scared. I will give you an example:

If a puppy dog guarding a sheep fold barks at the sight of a wolf approaching at night, its barking will make the wolf hesitate and eventually run away; the wolf senses that what he is about to do is wrong, and is afraid someone will hear the dog's barking and try to attack him.

When fearful [frightened] soldiers come face-to-face with the enemy, they drop their guns and hide wherever they can to save their lives. The brave ones however aim at the enemies and hit them, mostly on the legs, and fearlessly get closer and closer to them.>>

(More Patristic citations will be added here: St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite etc.)

Orthodoxy, therefore, cannot, by her very nature, whitewash any injustice and inhumanity shown against others, whatever side that injustice may stem from. Orthodoxy is also foreign to any forms of terrorism, an act she considers to be a terrible and inhumane crime. She cannot however fight terrorism only with declarations and manifestos, but by calling people to the way of life of Her Saints, who, as people that have become liberated in Christ, go beyond all these situations of our fallen nature. This way of life and existence of our Saints is the Orthodox Ethos. It is not enough, therefore, to have an external agreement of words, but also to become incorporated into this ethos, which (through the uncreated Divine Grace) wins over the inclinations and practical consequences of our fall and resulting decline, i.e. wins over our death.

To be continued

 FOOTNOTES

not a religion = The koine word for religion is èñçóêåßá and has a different meaning from the word we usually ascribe to it today. We use the word to describe man's attempt to find God. (For example, we can meet the term in the sense of idolatry, which is a good example of a religion). We stress here that we are talking about man's attempt to find God and not the inner thirst he has for God; we shall call this religious feeling. For the religious feeling is not something we created with our intellect but a gift from God.

When we were conceived, Christ placed a small thread inside us and we, like kites, were to be allowed to fly as far away from Him as we liked. But He still controls the kite and pulls the thread now and then, to remind us that there is more to life than our flesh. This inherent feeling of religion is something all people in the world share, as human beings, being the inner feeling of looking for God. It is muddy of course, which is why without God's help and revelation we are led to worship the lightning or the sun; perhaps even the "holy cow". But Christianity is not this but the opposite. It is God's revealed Truth, the Divine Revelation. This way we are led to the actual truths of things that our religious quest makes us ponder about. What is God? The Trinity. Is there a soul? Yes. What happens after death? Awaiting Second Judgment in a place of repose (Paradise) or in a place of judgment (Hades today) and eventually, after our full judgment, eternal life in the Kingdom of God or eternal damnation in Hell, respectively. Our true reasons for living become revealed. Instead of spending our life using our human logic to search for truths, we are shown what the divine logic teaches (Logos being etymologically similar to "logic"). The Divine Logic is revealed to us through the Incarnate Logos inside His Body, the Ecclesia or Orthodox Church. And what a difference! How inferior our logic to God's! Can it be compared to it? No.

So what would Christ say today about the religions of our world? Actually, Christ has talked to us about the religions. Thus, Christ said: "all who ever came before me", i.e. all the false religions, "were thieves and robbers" (Jn. 10:8). Thieves, liars, exploiters. So Christianity is not a religion. It is faith. No religion is faith. Pay careful attention to this point. "Religious" people say "we believe" and "we feel this or that", and they may even follow laws and regulations, like the Moslems and the Jews do; but they always end up questioning their reasoning, because they do not have faith sustained from Christ but only their limited intellect to work with their internal religious agitation. This is why "religious people", even Protestants and Papics who created theoretical religions from remnants of Christianity by their intellect, always end up being pro-pseudo-ecumenist. "We all share part of the Truth" or "we are all together in peace and harmony" which actually translates as we are ready to make dogmatic concessions in our religion. This is why it is so easy for allodox first and those deceived by heresy second to fall prey to this forerunner of the Antichrist. This is also why some pseudo-ecumenist hierarchs and laity of Orthodoxy have been attracted to these "religions": they did not like Jesus's revelation but preferred instead the love of money and what the Fathers call "the bitter glory of the world"; and thus, they lost their faith, turning instead to intellectual scholasticism. But we as Orthodox are not free to believe what we want. Oh no. We believe and follow the life that we are given. Even if we fall, we get up and try again to follow that thorny narrow path. Why? Because Christ is the Truth. Because this narrow path will get us to Paradise. This way, it is possible for people who have never been educated to speak more wisely than the wise of the world. Because they follow the "foolishness of the Cross" (the divine logic) and not the "wisdom of the world" (the human logic). This is also why Christ did not answer the question of Pontius Pilate: "What is truth?" It was the wrong question for the Truth is a Person, Himself, and not a thing. This way, we also learn about facts ("truths" with a small t) that are above our human logic. How was the world made? "From the nothing" (ek tou mhdenos). God speaks and the world is made. No pre-eternal matter, no philosophical theories. Can our mind fit this? No. Can our logic deduce this? No.

Therefore Orthodoxy is not only different from religion; She is diametrically opposed to religion because man's quest to seek God independent of God is doomed to failure. Of course, the term is used all the time, but that is by abuse of language, for obvious practical reasons. (We have used it ourselves quite often.) But this is in the same way that we abuse our everyday speech; or the way we abuse our language in Mathematics (e.g. in Analysis, we always say that "the function $f$ belongs to the space $L_2(R)$" when we actually mean that the function $f$ is taken from the equivalence class of functions equal to $f$ "almost everywhere", which class belongs to L_2(R)). This is why the reader will find the word religion for Christianity; by abuse of language. Strictly speaking, however, Orthodoxy is not a religion. Perhaps the time is coming that we should stop the abuse of language in order to differentiate the True Faith of Christ (Orthodoxy) from the false religions of the world that are being promoted into a damnable amalgam, the Pan-Religion of the Antichrist.

bloody past = Recall the atrocities of the Vatican against the Serbs during WWII that were considered barbaric even by Nazis, as well as the blessing of these atrocities by the late pope, as the recent consecration in Croatia of the "butcher of the Serbs" Aloysius Stepinac to the Sainthood of the Papic church proved. It is for such ... ethos that the late John Paul II has also been elevated to the status of a ..."saint" of the Latin church!

cooperation = It might be prudent for the reader to examine some of the groups that the American-based International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) is affiliated with. Here are a typical few: Geneva Global Inc., Norwegian Church Aid, Church World Services (CWS), Action by Churches Together (ACT). The mere participation with ACT, for example, shows to us (as the name suggests) that some are trying to tell us that we are one Church among that plethora of heresies and para-Christian groups; not the Church. Naturally, since we are all one big ... happy family, we can co-operate in "love" for the needs of the world. The question though, dear reader, is not whether we can run rings around our own conscience. The question is if we think that our ACT-ions will be pleasing to God, Who reminds us that "the sacrifices of the impious are an abomination unto the Lord" (Prov. 21:27). Naturally, the Orthodox people who contribute to IOCC and similar charities with the aim of helping the poor and destitute will receive their spiritual salary from above. Of course, IOCC itself is an Orthodox philanthropical organisation; however its co-operation with heresy dampens the importance of its uniqueness, as it appears as yet another group which does "good works". However, those behind the scenes who aim through such acts of philanthropy achieve their desired equalisation of Orthodoxy with heresy are deceived for "God cannot be fooled" ...

philanthropy = We use the word here in its more general sense. From philos = friend and anthropos = man; in other words, what is commonly translated into English periphrastically as "the Love of Man". Christ is the only true Philanthropos, i.e. "Lover of Man".

Huntington = Interestingly enough, according to Huntington, Orthodoxy stands at the antipodes of the West. Is this perhaps the reason why the Western forces attempt to fully "justify" the "liberation" of the Orthodox Serbs (through slaughter)? As the reader can read here, that seems to be the sad state of affairs. Now perhaps the reader can see why we are so appalled by the cacodoxies of the "Virtue of War"; we clearly state that such "Protestantising" and "Vaticanising" Orthodox have no connection to the Truth of our Faith.

bia = We must pay attention to this important word and its derivatives (the verb biazo (I cause bia), or biazei (he/she/it causes bia), the noun biasmos etc.). Bia does not mean violence in the way the word is commonly used in English. It is closer to the notion of a "violent", as in struggling, effort that we make. Thus it is more general than the word violence we meet in English. In modern Greek the word biasmos (from bia) has changed meaning and is almost identical to the word rape. This is because the word bia has nowadays a more limited "capacity", although one can still say that "I biazo (act bia upon) my self to stop drinking" and people understand that he is not trying to harm himself through violent means in his attempt to stop his passion for alcohol. They understand that he is making a hard effort to stop himself from touching alcoholic beverages.

Indeed, the word biasmos in koine refers to the "violent" struggle, the acting out of bia. We can think of biasmo to indicate a "wrong" type of struggle (the struggle of the kamikazi, or rapist, for instance); but it can also indicate the "good" struggle (as in the biblical quotation). Therefore, self-biasmos refers to the self-effort that we must exert on ourselves in order to rise spiritually. Of course, ascetics have used more physical means of violence upon themselves (e.g. a whip of cords) in order to cause a degree of violence against their flesh. Not out of self-destructive tendencies (and certainly understanding that this is not for all but for those at higher levels of spiritual maturity, especially monastics, under the guidance of their spiritual father) but in order to humble their flesh and thus their pride. In the same way, fasting, prostrations, the use of the sack cloth in older times, are all means by which we cause violence against our bodies at the same time as we cause violence against our inner passions that trouble us. This is because man is a psychosomatic unity, and it is not possible to separate the physical struggle from the spiritual one.

Thus, many Athonite saintly monastics would remove their shoes when no one was around and walk barefoot among the hard stones and thorns. Lay people also make attempts to humble their flesh and comforts. It is not uncommon for lay Orthodox Christians to use a large stone instead of a pillow, or to try to sleep on hard beds and not pamper themselves with soft mattresses. Of course, we do not all have the same ability to go through such trials, and we must always heed our spiritual father, using discernment and common sense. However, the principle is the same, and Christ will award our efforts, since we are not competing against one another but against our old self that we try to have him renewed in Christ, irrespective of what step of the ladder we may be on. Christ wants to see that we try to move to the next step. This is why the Pharisee who was on a higher step than the Publican fell, in his self-conceit whereas the Publican was justified in the eyes of Christ, even though he was at a lower step. He began to make the effort and thus he began to move.

Incidentally, we would like to point out that someone who reads an English translation of the Bible and is totally cut off from the Patristic Tradition of Orthodoxy cannot possibly understand the above verse (the translation was taken from KJV). This is hardly the only place in the Holy Writ where apart from the problems of personal judgment (the KJV translates the word paradosis as it befits Protestant theology) and lack of the Orthodox mindset (any non-Orthodox non-Byzantine-text translation will have shortcomings), there is a third stumbling block: language. The English language is unable to express the koine text. Taking into consideration that many translating political correctionists in the Diaspora, as we have seen elsewhere, use this fact in order to provide their own propaganda, we hope that it becomes clear to the reader that there is no substitute for having the Greek tongue stay alive in Diaspora parishes. Furthermore, it is a matter of great significance for non-Greek-speaking Orthodox to study the works of the Fathers of our Church directly, as much as possible, in order to better understand the biblical Word; and not through the pseudo-ecumenist or scholastic filters that are being applied by many publishers. After all, we are not allowed to provide our own personal interpretations even if we can read the koine and Septuagint texts. Of course, the problem is far deeper when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible. This is because the Books of the Bible are not "either canonical or deuterocanonical". For more information, the reader is highly advised to read here.

Nevertheless, a better translation for Mt. 11:12 would be: "The kingdom of God is forced upon and forceful people take it”. It is to be understood in the above context.