Nicholas Sooy,Public Οthodoxy
The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World” offers timely
statement on war, peace, and justice. The nature of conflict has evolved
and the Church needs to counsel the faithful on the peacemaking
vocation.
This document offers an authoritative peace stance, and makes
recommendations, but these are mostly too vague and incomplete. In
particular, more should be developed regarding faithful responses to
violence.
The basis for peace is the dignity of the human person (1.2), and
peace is defined as the manifestation of dignity, social justice,
freedom, the unity of mankind, and love among peoples and nations (3.1).
War, conflict, violence, the arms race, and destructive weapons are all
identified as the result of evil and sin (2.2, 4.1). Thus, peace and
war are viewed first through a theological lens. The Church’s mission is
to address the spiritual roots of conflict; however, the Church is also
called to respond to conflict in the world and to make peace. St. Basil
is cited as saying “nothing is so characteristic of a Christian as to
be a peacemaker” (3.2).
This document definitively states, “The Church of Christ condemns
war,” and condemns nuclear weapons and “all kinds of weapons” (4.1). It
also calls it a “duty” of the Church to encourage whatever brings about
peace and justice (3.5). Specific actions are recommended, including
prayer, cooperation with social institutions, cooperation among nations
and states, cooperation between Christians, peacekeeping, solidarity,
and dialogue (1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 6.1, 6.6).
This list is good, but is incomplete and vague. The Church “supports
all initiatives and efforts to prevent or avert [war] through dialogue
and every other viable means;” such a statement should be strengthened
by specifying some other viable means (4.2). Specifically, all weapons,
including nuclear, are condemned, but no calls are made for disarmament
or limiting the production and trade of arms, and the use of nuclear
weapons is not unequivocally condemned. Likewise, nothing is said of the
practice of blessing conventional and nuclear weapons with holy water.
In the same vein, while wars based on nationalism are condemned, nothing
is said of modernist nationalism generally (4.3). Orthodox nationalism
should be condemned, since it divides.
Similarly, while the proven strategies of peacebuilding, sustainable
development, and nonviolence are all implicitly endorsed, they should
also be explicitly called for. In particular, the viability of
nonviolent campaigns and institutions has risen dramatically over the
past century. Chenoweth and Stephan (2008) found that nonviolent
campaigns are more than twice as successful as violent ones at achieving
their goals, and each decade the ratio increases. The language of
nonviolence has been employed by many including Patriarch Kirill, while
Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA has called nonviolence “the Gospel’s
command,” and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has called nonviolence a
“Christian concept” with Orthodox roots. Given the role of nonviolence
in the contemporary world, nonviolence should be mentioned. Wars are
rarely openly fought between nations anymore, and conflict today
involves greater civilian participation; the Middle East and former
Soviet countries exemplify this. Nonviolence is most effective in such
contexts, and the Church should recommend Christian investment and
participation in nonviolent action, while condemning violent action.
War is condemned without qualification, and yet the document is
ambiguous regarding participation in war, “When war becomes inevitable,
the Church continues to pray and care in a pastoral manner for her
children who are involved in military conflict for the sake of defending
their life and freedom” (4.2). While language of ‘inevitability’ is
better than the theologically problematic language of ‘necessary evil,’
it would be better to say that the Church cares for all involved in
conflict. No elaboration is given regarding what makes a war
‘inevitable,’ or under what conditions fighting is allowed. The only
conditions listed are for life and freedom, but ‘freedom,’ a common
excuse for unnecessary fighting, is undefined. Martyrdom should also be
mentioned as an alternative response to violence. The martyrs faced
death and imprisonment, and are lauded over soldiers. Even so, the
document glosses over the fact that most soldiers today do not fight for
such causes, but instead are employed in ‘humanitarian’ interventions
or fighting insurgents. These realities should be addressed, since such
military operations are usually the result of nationalism and
globalization, both of which are condemned in one form or another (4.3,
6.5).
Also missing is counsel regarding conscientious objection. In this
document, the Church promises care to those who fight, but a similar
pledge is not made to those who for Christian reasons refuse. Given the
strongly anti-war statements in the rest of the document, one might
expect that the Church would recommend conscientious objection or
disobedience in at least some circumstances. Nothing is said of this, or
of the practice of universal conscription in countries like Russia and
Greece.
There is a final weakness in the account of violence. Peace is aptly
defined as the presence of justice and dignity, rather than the
cessation of violence. Along these lines, “oppression and persecution”
in the Middle East are condemned, along with religious fanaticism,
because they “uproot Christianity from its traditional homelands” (4.3).
In response to this, the document calls for a “just and lasting
resolution” (4.3). These statements, along with other condemnations of
things like secularism and globalized consumer capitalism, are too vague
to accomplish anything. In particular, such condemnations can and have
served as pretexts for Orthodox Christians to take up arms and engage in
interventionist warfare. Peace is defined as the “reign” on earth of
“Christian principles” of justice and dignity, and such language may be
seen by some to warrant Christian warfare for the sake of establishing
such a ‘reign’ (3.1). It would be counterproductive if a document
condemning war allowed escape clauses for Christian nationalists to
undertake war in defense of “traditional homelands,” or some other noble
cause. Such inconsistencies threaten the integrity of the document, and
as such the Great and Holy Council should clarify which methods and
means are acceptable for addressing injustice. As it is, greater
clarification and revision is needed.
Nicholas Sooy is a doctoral student at Fordham University. He
writes for the Orthodox Peace Fellowship, an endorsed organization of
the Assembly of Bishops.