Orthodox attitude to war and military service

Isn't religion the cause of all wars?

Some wars (though, of course, not all) were fought under religious slogans and between groups professing different religions. We can see this even now - they especially like to remember extremist groups like Daesh (aka ISIS - a terrorist organization banned on the territory of the Russian Federation) and the protracted conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Other examples are given - the extremely fierce and devastating Thirty Years' War in Europe in the 17th century, the terrible massacre between Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims that occurred after the British left India, and this enmity continues to flare up in episodic clashes, the massacre in the former Yugoslavia between people practically one language, but different cultures associated with religions - Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Islam, respectively. The examples go on and on, with Dawkins (and other atheist authors) exclaiming that if it weren't for religion, none of this would have happened.

Why is this conclusion grossly incorrect? It represents a fairly typical matching of problem to answer - militant atheists are already convinced that religion is the source of war, and wherever they find war and religion, they postulate that the latter is the cause of the former. And you can find both of them everywhere - alas, people have been fighting throughout their history, and the vast majority of cultures in history are religious. Religiosity is a common property of the human race, such as bipedality. We might as well point out that all wars are fought by two-legged people and declare bipedality to be the cause of wars.

It should be noted that, for example, the classic example of a “religious war” - the Thirty Years' War, if we look at it in more detail, does not look so religious. For example, the Catholic Cardinal Richelieu fought with Catholic Spain - obviously for the sake of the state interests of France, and not for the sake of religion. Acute national conflicts - such as in Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia - are precisely national, not religious. Their participants are not at all interested in theology; traditional religion is, at most, one of the markers that separates “friends” from “enemies.”

Moreover, the twentieth century is a century of wars, unheard of in terms of losses and destruction, which had nothing to do with religion, but were fought between purely secular regimes under the slogans of purely secular ideologies. So the cause of wars is clearly not religion.

To the image of the Orthodox warrior

1. Answer of the Angel of the Desert

“You deceived yourself and you were deceived. You were deceived by those who presented Christ to you as a weakling and a slobber. Reading the Gospel about the mercy of Christ and His love, they missed his menacing words about this terrible Stone - Which is Himself - and these words make the blood run cold. Whoever attacks Christ will be broken, and whoever He attacks will be crushed. He threatens punishment for infidelity in love and contempt for mercy. He is a fire that warms, but can also burn.”

St. Nicholas of Serbia

We can pay attention to the image of the Orthodox warrior, which emerges from reading the books of Holy Scripture and the works of the Holy Fathers.

Thus, there is an opportunity to pose a number of questions and try to answer them: what should an Orthodox warrior be like? What qualities should he have? What is allowed to him and what is unacceptable for him under any circumstances? Thus, we will try to touch upon the topic of how, in practical terms, the Orthodox worldview and the real life of an Orthodox warrior should be combined.

As you know, the New Testament contains several references to soldiers and military actions. For our topic, the first mention of military personnel in the Good News is of great importance. When Saint John the Baptist preached baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, then he gave an answer to representatives of several groups of Jewish society: first he answered the Pharisees and Sadducees, and then he said what to do for the common people, tax collectors and soldiers. “And the people asked him: What should we do? He answered and said to them, “Whoever has two coats, give to the poor, and whoever has food, do the same.” The publicans also came to be baptized, and said to him: Master! what should we do? He answered them: do not demand anything more specific to you. The soldiers also asked him: what should we do? And he said to them: Do not offend anyone, do not slander, and be content with your salary” (Luke 3: 10-14). At that time the expectation of the Messiah was universal. The harder and more anxious the life of Jewish society was, the more intensely people waited for help from above, clothing their aspirations in the dream of the coming of the Savior, who would save them from all problems, from pressing everyday problems to the establishment of world political hegemony for Israel.

The warriors also responded to the Desert Angel's call to repentance. Moreover, the repentance of the Pharisees and Sadducees and the soldiers, so to speak, was of different “quality.” The angry words of the last prophet were addressed to the former: “When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them: brood of vipers! who told you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matt. 3:7). Repentance is a change of mind, it is a person’s awareness of the sinfulness of his life and the desire to change for the better. It is obvious that it is very difficult for the proud to be reborn, creating fruit worthy of repentance: “thou hast rebuked the proud: cursed are they that turn away from thy commandments” (Ps. 119:21). It can be assumed that the educated Pharisees and Sadducees actually came to John not to repent, but to see if he was the long-awaited leader of the Jews who would give them power over the world. And simple pious warriors were able to change their minds. That is, these warriors were spiritually superior to the representatives of the “party of power” of the Sadducees and the “ritual believers” of the Pharisees - the “elite” of Jewish society of that time. Let us pay attention to the question that the people, publicans and soldiers successively asked the Baptist: “What should we do ?” A change of mind necessarily implies actions that are the opposite of previous sinful ones. It is not enough to limit yourself to the understanding that you lived wrong; you need to take effective steps to confirm a “change of course.”

John the Baptist's answer contains three components: "do not offend anyone, do not slander, and be content with your salary." Before we consider the prophet's answer in more detail, let's pay attention to the following. With his answer, the prophet actually gives us the necessary minimum on the path of salvation. Who exactly? A wide range of people, since the “people”, “publicans” - that is, tax officers, customs officers, bailiffs and “warriors” - are employees of law enforcement agencies, and make up a significant and large part of society, both in ancient times and now. Here is how Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria writes about this: “Look how John convinces the simple class of people, as those who are not evil, to do something good, that is, to give to others, and to publicans and soldiers to refrain from evil. For these were not yet capable, could not do anything good, but it was enough for them not to do evil” ( https://avs75.ru/Luka-glava-3.html ). “We weren’t capable yet.” Very precise words of Saint Theophylact. By the time John the Baptist preached, various servants, including soldiers, understood the sinfulness of their lives and the need to change it. Since they were not yet capable of doing good, they were asked, as a necessary and initial measure, not to do evil. Or maybe it’s enough for the warriors to do what was said by the Forerunner of the Lord and there is no need for anything else? It turns out that this is not enough, since only by abstaining from evil, you won’t even be able to stay at this level. Let us remember what the Lord God said to Cain: “If you do good, don’t you lift your face? And if you do not do good, then sin lies at the door; he draws you to himself, but you have dominion over him” (Gen. 4:7). That is, the “lower limit” in the required behavior is given, but observing only prohibitive orders is not enough. We will talk about what else warriors should do, besides what the Baptist of the Lord said, in the future, and now we will move on to the very answer of the Angel of the Desert.

Let's start with its first part: “Don't offend anyone.” It would seem, how can a warrior, a man with a weapon who must fight with enemies and not only “offend anyone”, “not offend anyone”, but, in case of their resistance, destroy them? Obviously, we are not talking about the warrior’s enemies in accordance with his legal status as a defender, and the command “do not offend” does not apply to enemy warriors or rebels, but to peaceful people, to “civilians.” The practice of that time, and indeed of any time, is replete with violence on the part of the “man with a gun” towards those who do not have these weapons. And therefore John points out to the soldiers the inadmissibility of such an “order of things.” “War feeds itself”, “war feeds war” - these “respectable” phrases actually cover up the bloody “Vaevictis” (“woe to the vanquished”), a situation in which the vanquished must be prepared for any tragic development of events for them. Bullying and violence against the defenseless by the military is certainly an evil that cannot be covered up or justified by anything. And the Baptist of the Lord draws the attention of armed people to the inadmissibility of the temptation that weapons give - to use them for other purposes. Many centuries later, one Orthodox warrior and commander, in his work aimed at training military personnel, will literally say the following: “Don’t offend the average person, he is our breadwinner. A soldier is not a robber.” Alexander Suvorov did not consider faith “a personal matter for everyone,” he lived it, organically applying the doctrinal provisions of Orthodoxy in the field of military art. In addition to the important statement in itself: “For judgment is without mercy to him who showed no mercy; mercy is exalted above judgment" (James 2:13) , the use of atrocities against civilians also has a practical significance, directly affecting the course of the war and often leading the side of the rapist to defeat. Which, again, refers us to the spiritual “law of God’s truth,” according to St. Theophan the Recluse.

The second component of John the Baptist’s answer to the soldiers sounds like this: “Do not slander.” To slander is: “to slander someone, slander, slander someone, slander, slander, slander, denigrate, accuse in vain” ( Dal’s Explanatory Dictionary https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Spravochniki/tolkovyj-slovar-zhivogo- velikorusskogo-jazyka-vi-dalja-bukva-k/844).What is meant by prohibiting soldiers from slandering? It must be remembered that we are talking about people in public service. At first, the soldiers were told that the unlawful use of weapons was unacceptable. Now that they should not invent false accusations for the purpose of extortion, which, obviously, was common practice at that time. In addition, the word “slander” also means slander, that is, uttering evil words. Verbal filth is the scourge of our time. “I don’t swear, I talk to them” - unfortunately, such bravado has become commonplace. The evil of dirty words accompanies us everywhere, on the street, in schools, universities, from TV screens and so on. The Armed Forces are the most affected by this serious illness. A story is spreading on social networks about the advantage of swearing, which supposedly serves to speed up orders and commands in wartime. As they write in the editors of the publication of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra “The Truth about Russian Mat”: “In our time, the Russian man, who previously defeated enemies for the glory of God with prayer and the sign of the cross, exchanged them for another, opposite weapon - a strong word” (Bishop Mitrofan ( Badanin). “The truth about Russian swearing.” Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2016. p. 3). Let us give two examples where the word served to save people. “The warriors of the so-called Melite Legion, with faith, which from that time until now has supported them in battles with the enemy, fell, according to our prayer custom, to their knees and turned to God with a prayer. The sight was amazing for the enemies, but what, according to the story, befell them right there was even more amazing: a terrible thunderstorm put the enemies to flight and killed them; the downpour that poured down on those who called to God restored the strength of the entire army, which was on the verge of death" (Eusebius Pamphilus. "Church History". M., 2016. p. 210). The second example relates to the events of the First Chechen Campaign, when in 1994 a small group of Russian army soldiers found themselves surrounded and preparing for a breakthrough, with virtually no chance of success: “Everyone prepared for this throw into eternity. Around us, the enemy constantly chanted his spells: “Allah Akbar!”, putting pressure on the psyche and trying to paralyze the will. And then we somehow decided at once that we would shout our Russian: “Christ is Risen!” It was a strange, externally inspired decision. It is no secret that in all extreme, extreme situations of war, we usually shouted wild, furious obscenities. And then suddenly it’s completely opposite - the holy: “Christ is Risen!” And these amazing words, as soon as we uttered them, unexpectedly deprived us of fear” (Bishop Mitrofan (Badanin). “The Truth about Russian Mat.” Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2016. p. 9,10). Two situations, separated in time by more than a millennium, are connected by their attitude to the word. People, warriors, being on the threshold of death, do not defile themselves with abuse, but, on the contrary, turn to the Lord God with words of prayer. Truly: “Death and life are in the mouth of the tongue: but those who restrain it eat up its fruit” (Prov. 18:21). A word that does not create good destroys. With a word you can lift a person’s spirit, motivate him to a heroic deed, and with a word you can “kill” him, depriving a person of peace of mind and balance. “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their host,” says the psalmist David, and the Lord God warns about careful use of the word: “For every idle word that people speak, they will give an answer on the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36). This command of the Savior applies to all people, including soldiers. Let us note that an Orthodox warrior is first of all a Christian, that is, a follower of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and only after that he is a warrior. And the commands and instructions of the Lord God also fully apply to him, Who called on His followers to imitate Himself: “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11: 29). An Orthodox warrior should not use foul language or prolixity; truly courageous behavior does not lie in shouting, fuss and irritation. Jesus the Most Quiet and the Chief of Silence - so beautifully, in the words of prayers, it is said about our Teacher in the Orthodox Church created by Him. True courage was shown by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who could plead with His Heavenly Father and receive from him more than 12 legions of angels, but Who meekly ascended to the cross for our sins. He gave His sinless and priceless life for our sinners and said that “greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

“Be content with your salary” - these words conclude the Forerunner’s answer to the warriors. Perhaps this is said because the maintenance of soldiers was already a heavy burden on the people, so St. John the Baptist convinces people with weapons not to extort an additional source of income from “civilians.” In addition, robberies and looting accompany the war, were and are one of its manifestations. But...We remember the campaign of Abram, saving his nephew at the risk of his life. The only thing his warriors took when conducting raids in a foreign land was food, and this was due to the inability to lead food convoys. As a result of that war, Abram not only freed his nephew, but also saved a large number of local residents from captivity, which, of course, exceeds the forced appropriation of a certain amount of their products. Also, Abram, upon completion of this military campaign, refused any form of remuneration, noting that he had to take advantage of the fruits of that land to feed his unit. Many centuries later, during the Swiss campaign, Suvorov’s exhausted army, fighting and advancing in extremely difficult mountainous conditions, did not rob the locals, paying them for food, lodging and fodder. The behavior of Russian soldiers during the foreign campaigns of the Russian army in 1813-14 was fundamentally different from the behavior of the soldiers of Napoleon’s army in Russia. Even these examples are enough to understand that even in war you can remain human and not commit evil and crimes.

2. Dying for others

“We, my friend, stood over the steppe at midnight: Don’t go back, don’t look back. Behind Nepryadva the swans screamed, And again, again they scream...

There is a flammable white stone on the way. Across the river is a filthy horde. The bright banner above our shelves will never fly again.

And, bowing his head to the ground, My friend says to me: “Sharpen your sword, So that it’s not in vain to fight with the Tatars, To lie down dead for a holy cause!”

Blok A.A. " On the Kulikovo field ."

The three components of John the Baptist’s answer to the soldiers: “do not offend, do not slander, do not get rich unrighteously” are designed to protect the latter from temptations: the unlawful use of weapons, slander and unjust enrichment. To show us how important it is to fight temptations and teach us how to overcome the wiles of the devil, our Lord Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be tempted by gluttony, miracles and man-worship - three passions, these “bonds of the world,” according to the Monk Simeon the New Theologian. Moreover, the temptation of the Savior in the desert occurred a short time after John the Baptist’s answer to the soldiers.

We have learned what an Orthodox warrior should not do. What can and should he do? The hero of one movie, a special forces officer, very accurately expresses this important topic: “Remember, you said what we can’t do? And I'll tell you what we can do. We, Sanka, can die for others" ( film " Storm Gates "). “Dying for others” is an Orthodox principle. Let's look at why this is so. The basis of all fundamental provisions in Orthodoxy is the Lord God Jesus Christ Himself. Moreover, the Creator is the fundamental first principle of all Christian life, including its military component. This, for example, was perfectly understood by the warrior of Christ, Alexander Suvorov, who said: “ God is our general. He guides us. Victory from him! “ The Lord God Jesus Christ gave His life for us. The behavior of an Orthodox warrior is an imitation of Christ, who calls us to act as He does. That is, an Orthodox warrior, going to fight for his faith, earthly Fatherland, family and friends, first of all, goes to die. Not to kill, but to die, to die for... This is his main task and goal. Yes, the Lord can save his life, but the motivation of an Orthodox warrior should be precisely this - if necessary, to give his life for his neighbor. If necessary, that is, the task of an Orthodox warrior’s participation in battle is victory over the enemy, and not death as such. He must do his job well and as efficiently as possible - fight. "To die for" refers to his motivation. According to Archpriest Mikhail Vasiliev regarding the celebration of Defender of the Fatherland Day - February 23: “In this sense, for me personally, it does not matter at all what our army was called at one time or another - Russian, imperial, Soviet or Russian. It is important that the principles that a person demonstrated in this service were always the same, namely, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. From time immemorial, Russian people went to war not to kill, but to die. This is exactly how we treat him, as a protector who dies for the bad and for the good, for the good and the evil. He dies not of his own free will, but out of obedience, i.e. by order. He performs a task, the meaning of which he does not fully understand, but he does it precisely by sacrificing himself for the sake of love for those who are dear to him, who remained at home, hoping that with his death, with his self-sacrifice, he will help them. These hopes were not always justified, but, nevertheless, it is impossible to imagine that any of us would physically exist if there had not been Victory in the Great Patriotic War" (“Canceling this holiday would be an insult to many of our parishioners” ).

Perhaps not all Orthodox fighters understand the deep meaning of their military mission, but, for example, the centuries-old history of Russian self-sacrifice on the battlefield tells us that such an understanding is not accidental or episodic. Perhaps precisely because voluntarily sacrificing oneself while conducting combat operations is, in fact, one of the Russian traditions, inextricably linked with the historical memory of the people, no attempts have ever been made to somehow codify Russian heroics and create something similar to the Bushido code " There are no such attempts precisely because of the religious nature of the actions of the Russian soldier in war - humility and classification of one’s self-sacrifice as something due does not allow one to extremely highly extol one’s undoubtedly outstanding achievements. If we consider the popular Russian songs: “Spring will not come for me”, “Black Raven”, “Like brothers, love!”, “Varyag”, “Farewell of a Slav” and a number of others, then here too we can see “calm”, without affects, attitude towards death on the battlefield, which, once again, confirms the above.

“We surrender ourselves and each other and our whole life to Christ God” ( Divine Liturgy of our holy father John Chrysostom https://azbyka.ru/bogosluzhenie/slugebnik/slug04.shtml) - here is another Orthodox principle that “embraces” everything our potentially appropriate behavior, including in the military sphere. The commandment of the Lord God Jesus Christ - to love your neighbor - is the basis of the idea of ​​resisting evil with force. It is this commandment and the Savior’s love for people, love until one’s own death, that gives the Orthodox warrior the basis and example of how to behave in war.

The well-known military principle “do as I do” existed before our ancestors accepted the true faith; war, by definition, implies the manifestation of leadership qualities, but it was Christianity that brought a new, deeper meaning to it.

"Do as I do!" - in pagan times in war it means to be courageous, to strive to gain military glory, to be terrible for enemies, mercilessly exterminating them. Such “cyborgs” and “terminators” - “giants” in Church Slavonic, are mentioned in the Holy Scriptures: “Shouldn’t they also lie with the fallen uncircumcised heroes, who with their military weapons descended into the underworld and put their swords under their heads, and what remained their iniquity is in their bones, because they, being mighty, were a terror in the land of the living” ( Ezek. 32:27).

“Do as I do” - for an Orthodox warrior in war means still being courageous, but, in addition, showing mercy to the losers and captured enemies and, most importantly, being ready to give the most valuable thing he has - his life “for others.” its".

Imitation of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ is manifested in the Orthodox army and in the situation immediately before battle with the enemy. In the Garden of Gethsemane, the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, before His torment and death on the cross, grieved and grieved for His humanity, turning in prayer to the Heavenly Father with a request to pass by the mortal cup, expressing complete humility before His will: “And Having gone a little further, he fell on his face, prayed and said: My Father! if possible, let this cup pass from Me; however, not as I want, but as You want” ( Matthew 26:39). Possible death on the battlefield is certainly scary; there are no people who are not afraid of death, trying in different ways to overcome the fear of it. Orthodox warriors, just like all people, fearing possible death, pray before battle, preparing to accept the will of God with dignity. “When deep night came, Dmitry Volynets, taking the Grand Duke with him only, rode out onto the Kulikovo field and, standing between two armies and turning to the Tatar side, heard a loud knock, and shouts, and a cry, as if the marketplaces were converging, as if a city was being built, like great thunder roars; from the rear of the Tatar army, wolves howl very menacingly, on the right side of the Tatar army, crows call and the hubbub of birds is very loud, and on the field side, as if the mountains are shaking - terrible thunder, along the Nepryadva River geese and swans splash their wings, foreshadowing an unprecedented thunderstorm. And the great prince said to Dmitry Volynets: “We hear, brother, the thunderstorm is very terrible,” and Volynets shone: “Call, prince, God for help! turned the Russian army - and there was great silence ” ( “ The Legend of Mamaev ’s Massacre ” . https://www.bookol.ru/starinnoe/drevnerusskaya_literatura/170283/fulltext . htm ) . Galina Kalinina writes: “We remember that noise, screams, and hubbub were heard on the Tatar side. The Tatars anticipated victory and had fun. And on the Russian side there was deathly silence. The Russians prepared for battle, confessed, read prayers and spent, perhaps, the last evening of their lives in reverence. And this strange tradition, unusual for other peoples, has always been alive” ( G. Kalinina. “ For one’s friends. The Tale of the Holy Prince Dimitri Donskoy and the Battle of Kulikovo .” M., p. 165).

“Once again, over the Kulikovo field, the darkness rose and spread, And, like a harsh cloud, covered the coming day.

Behind the endless silence, behind the spreading darkness, the thunder of the wonderful battle is not heard, the lightning of battle is not visible.

But I recognize you, the beginning of high and rebellious days! Over the enemy camp, as it used to be, And the splashing and trumpets of swans.

The heart cannot live in peace, No wonder the clouds have gathered. The armor is heavy, as before a battle. Now your time has come. - Pray!

( Blok . A.A. “ On the Kulikovo Field ” . https://rustih.ru/aleksandr - blok - na - pole - kulikovom / )

And more from our poetic heritage:

“I lay down to take a nap by the carriage, And until dawn you could hear how the Frenchman rejoiced, But our open bivouac was quiet: Who was cleaning the shako, all beaten, Who was sharpening the bayonet, grumbling angrily, Biting his long mustache ” ( http : //borodino.hrest . info / borodino - ru - text . htm ).

said “ those who undertake to write about Russian history should know heartfelt Russian poetry ” ( https://kozhinov.voskres.ru/hist 2 / glava 1. htm ) . Mikhail Lermontov did not come up with the idea of ​​silence before the battle in the Russian camp; his uncle, an artillery officer, was a direct participant in the Battle of Borodino. There is evidence from participants in the Battle of Kursk of the Great Patriotic War, who noted that on the night of July 4-5, 1943, before the start of the grandiose battle, when ours and the Germans were preparing for battle, an amazing silence reigned in the Russian camp... Despite the troubled times of revolutions, the Civil war and struggle against the Church of Christ, the Russian soul preserved Orthodox traditions, including military behavior before battle.

But weren’t wars fought—and aren’t they now—under religious slogans?

This is undoubtedly true, and there are many examples of military propaganda actively appealing to religion. But “the slogans under which the war is waged” and “the reasons for the war” are completely different things. From the fact that absolutely any military propaganda since the advent of writing declares the cause of its side to be good and fair, it does not in any way follow that the cause of all wars is kindness and justice. Of course, wars are officially launched to restore trampled justice, protect the oppressed, punish villains, establish peace and order, help victims - that is, for the most noble and sublime motives. (You will laugh, but from the point of view of the ancient Romans, they never launched a single aggressive war in their entire history; they always had good reasons) To believe that these noble motives are the cause of wars would be somewhat naive.

In any society, military propaganda appeals to the values ​​​​accepted in it - and if the society is religious, then it will appeal to religion. And if not especially, then to human rights, democracy, justice, dignity, freedom and other values ​​that are important to the people to whom it is addressed. This in no way makes these values ​​themselves a source of war.

New in blogs

I have one puzzling question. This question is practical, smoothly turning into theoretical. Since ancient times, military service was considered a civil and spiritual feat among Christians. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Many saints were warriors. But it's not that simple. St. Athanasius the Great in his letter to Ammun says: “It is not permissible to kill: but to kill enemies in battle is both lawful and worthy of praise.” And St. Basil the Great in the 13th rule says: “Our fathers did not charge murder in battle with murder, excusing, as it seems to me, the champions of chastity and piety. But perhaps it would be good to advise that they, as having unclean hands, refrain from communion of the Holy Mysteries for three years”[1]. “So, if wars and the murders that follow them are branches of the crime of arbitrary passions, then without a doubt it is necessary that those who spend their lives in battles and stain their hands in the blood of foreigners should first be cleansed by the medicine of repentance and burn away with its fire the filth associated with such activity, and thus began the mysteries of the new Adam. For the entire gospel law, which elevates us to a primitive state and calls us to a spiritual and, as far as possible, better life, nowhere approves of wars and does not allow murder to prevent the spread of evil, as was characteristic of the ancient law, but, being completely opposite to this to the latter, it teaches the opposite: for once the Lord, when His disciples, inflamed with the zeal of the Tishbite, asked Him if He would allow fire to be brought down on the Samaritans, who did not accept them, turning to them, forbade them and said: You do not know what spirit you are. (Luke 9:55)”[2].

In the modern world, being a regimental chaplain is much more difficult than ever. Unlike the parish, he must not only explain to the soldiers the meaning of a sometimes meaningless war (the game of politicians), but also bless (or not bless) them for their feats of arms. There are prayer rites for the consecration of weapons and military equipment. And who knows whether God will be pleased to kill people with this “sanctified” weapon? Political games are sometimes very murky. The question is serious, and the priest must approach it with all responsibility, because we are talking about life and death. By blessing the military for feats of arms, the priest thereby blesses them to give their lives and take the lives of others. And for what, it is sometimes difficult to understand. In Afghanistan, the Soviet command (Jewish Freemasons) ordered the killing of civilians, and many more Afghan women and children died there than Afghan military personnel. In Russia now, words about democracy cover up real Jewish fascism, which is worse than German. Russian soldiers are often sent to slaughter, and the state does not help the war-crippled soldiers. In Chechnya, with Jewish cruelty and cynicism, the command betrayed the Russian military, the Chechens shot them like chickens. The militants knew the call signs, the locations of the points where the troops were located, the routes of movement of troops, even their exact coordinates. Due to the outright betrayal of the command, the Russians were ambushed and suffered terrible losses: entire battalions were given over to be torn to pieces. Soldiers are not given the right to second-guess orders. What should a regimental priest do? Although he is not personally involved in combat operations, he nevertheless must have a certain connection with everything that happens there.

The situation is even more complicated when there are Christians on both sides. Christ commanded to love even enemies (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; Luke 6:35) and here it turns out that Christians are killing Christians - complete absurdity. If it becomes obvious that the war is unjust or Christians are killing Christians there, can the priest tell the soldiers not to fight, i.e. break the oath and desert?

As an illustration, I’ll tell you about the situation around the past Georgian-Abkhaz war (1992-1993). Before the start of this war, the canonical borders of the Georgian Orthodox Church extended to Abkhazia. The priests of the Sukhumi and Pitsunda dioceses (Georgians, Abkhazians) prayed together, served the liturgy, and said: “Christ is in our midst.” According to canonical rules, they commemorated their bishops (Georgians) during the service. But the war came (a purely political game that has nothing to do with church affairs), and now yesterday’s friends and prayer partners look through the target and pray to God alone (sic!) to help them kill each other! On one and the other side, priests read the same prayers over weapons, and the following could well have happened: an Abkhaz priest blessed a grenade launcher, and a Georgian priest blessed a mortar, and both died from the enemy’s “blessed” weapon. I am more interested in the “other side of the coin”: how will they hug in another world, will they say “Christ is in our midst,” or will they continue to “wet” each other? And how does the “heavenly office” react to the same prayers for victory over the enemy of both warring sides?

20 years have passed since then. The church situation has not changed at all. This is the situation of the “cold church war”: in Abkhazia they do not accept Georgian priests and do not even remember Georgian bishops at the service (i.e. they do not serve the Liturgy canonically), and the Georgians respond with a boycott and an “Orthodox” interdict, prohibiting clergy of other Local Churches from serving in Abkhazia. Meanwhile, if priests from Georgia and Abkhazia meet at a service somewhere in a “no man’s land”, for example on Mount Athos, they will hug according to the liturgical rite and say: “Christ is in our midst”! But having left for their homeland, they are again ready to kill each other and bless others to kill. It's not logical somehow!

Moreover, Christian Abkhazians are fighting not only with Christian Georgians, but have already divided among themselves into two warring factions![3] Meanwhile, ordinary secular people at the everyday level are making attempts to reconcile Abkhazians and Georgians[4]. Some kind of incomprehensible Orthodoxy in the Caucasus [5] : Christians are at enmity with each other, and non-believers are reconciled. It is obvious that it is much more difficult for the Orthodox to divide power and money than for atheists.

There was recently a military conflict with Georgia and Russia, but despite this, believers in both countries maintain good fraternal relations. We understand that war is a dirty political game. Moreover, a priest in the army is faced with the problem of whether to bless soldiers to kill others and risk their lives when the true motives and goals of the war are questionable (the official media always lies), and there may be fellow Christians in the enemy camp. One more example. In Japan, since 1870, an Orthodox spiritual mission was established through the works of the Russian missionary Archbishop Nicholas (Kasatkin). In 1970, Archbishop Nicholas was canonized with the title “Equal to the Apostles.” At first, the Japanese Church was a metropolitanate of the Russian Church, and only relatively recently (April 10, 1970) received Autonomous status. Japan has fought with Russia (and the USSR) more than once, but in relations with the Orthodox Japanese we do not hold grudges against each other (like the Abkhazians with the Georgians), and this is normal and understandable. I do not understand the following historical incident. When the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 began, Archbishop Nicholas blessed his Japanese flock to pray for the victory of Japan, and he himself stopped participating in public services and privately prayed for the victory of Russia[6]. It’s somehow unclear: here Christians from the same church are already praying to the same God about opposite things. Can anyone explain this madness? And in Russia they also prayed for victory. And in battles, Christians killed Christians. After all, you can’t tell who has what faith: maybe in hand-to-hand combat, they killed each other bravely. In the Ancient Church, “the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul” (Acts 4:32), and now the citizens of Heaven, constituting one Christian “unanimous” family, kill each other out of “civic duty,” i.e. with their earthly tradition they cancel the commandment of God! Good are the instructions of the Equal-to-the-Apostles, who puts love for compatriots above love for Christians! I wonder how, in another world, Christians who killed each other will love each other? If not, then they have no place in heaven, if so, how is this possible if they did not love each other on earth?

There is a lot of historical material on this topic: Christians have been fighting Christians for more than a thousand years. For the last century and a half, Christians have largely been forced to kill each other out of civic duty while in non-Christian states. There is no way to give “Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's things to God” (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). A dilemma arises: either one or the other is possible. And a strange thing is that Christians, as a rule, in such cases make a choice in favor of Caesar, i.e. Churches support the state in which they are located. I cannot understand this, why it happens that Christians, called to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3), do not have their “permanent city on earth, but are looking for the future” (Heb. 13:14) , brothers in faith, in quiet times they pray for each other, but when war happens, they carry out the will of a non-Christian state, they go to kill each other and in churches they pray for the victory of “their” country. But there is only one truth, and at most only one of the warring states is waging a just war. Prayers for his victory still have meaning, but prayers in support of another country will only lead to sin (Ps. 108:7). So what to do: break the oath, desert from the Army, or lovingly kill Christian brothers on the other side of the front (after all, it will not be possible to recognize them and separate them from non-Christians)? The same prayers come to God for the defeat of enemies from both warring sides. Isn't this all religious madness?

There is no intelligible explanation for this situation in church circles; everyone understands it in their own way; complete chaos reigns. Athonite monks, including the holy Athonite elders[7], welcomed fascist soldiers on Athos and were on their side, while Orthodox Greeks in the rest of Greece fought to the death against fascism. The brethren of the Athos Panteleimon Monastery once sent a congratulatory telegram to Hitler on the occasion of his success in conquering the Soviet Union. Also, the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad[8] supported and blessed Hitler, and believers in Russia (Moscow Patriarchate) fought for their Motherland, for Stalin. In each of the warring parties there were Christians who killed each other, there were priests who blessed this murder, read the same prayers for victory, and blessed weapons and banners. There were also “chameleons” who crossed over to the other side. For example, little Alyosha Ridiger, together with his priest father Mikhail, worked for the Gestapo in Nazi-occupied Estonia[9]. Together they went to fascist concentration camps and recruited Russian prisoners of war to serve with A. A. Vlasov, a Red Army general who went over to the Nazis and head of the Russian Liberation Army (ROA)[10]. When Soviet troops occupied Estonia, the Ridigers quickly defected and began serving in the NKVD. It is difficult to somehow justify the cynicism of the situation when the jokers from Lubyanka appointed Alexy Ridiger Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod in 1986. The future patriarch “nursed” the siege survivors, who were shot at by cannons blessed by the father of the “nurturing” one, and people kissed the hand of the son of the man who blessed the murderers of their fathers[11].

+ Unfortunately, I don’t really understand this topic, so I’ll probably have to write a book to understand it myself. In fact, these are all just special cases of disunity and alienation of Christians in our time. Take, for example, the relations of the Local Churches. The texts of official documents are very polite and abound in Gospel quotations. Joint worship services are also very touching; at festive receptions everyone is welcoming and brotherly. But as soon as different interests (political, economic, ambitious) collide, a “cold church war” begins for territories, areas of influence, titles, priorities, etc. As a consequence, many parallel jurisdictions arise (in violation of the most important principle of the unity of the Church), because the Orthodox cannot come to peaceful agreement with each other. All these divisions and fragmentations indicate that often Christians are not brothers to each other, but strangers.

We can consider the issue even more broadly, at the level of church-parish life and relationships among the laity. The bishop or priest serves the Liturgy and speaks touching sermons about the gospel virtues and deeds of the saints. But as soon as he leaves the temple, he is already as angry as a dog, indifferent to the needs of God’s people, proud and arrogant, you can’t approach him, you can’t have a heart-to-heart talk. Of course, this does not always happen, but quite often. Also, lay people often love only virtually. For example, at the Liturgy, the priest (or deacon) proclaims: “Let us love one another, and let us be of one mind.” And the choir continues: “Father and Son and Holy Spirit, Trinity, Consubstantial and indivisible.” Everyone here begins to mentally love each other in order to unanimously confess the Holy Trinity and receive communion without condemnation: “First reconcile you to those who have grieved you. Also daring, the mysterious food is delicious.” But now, the Liturgy ends, people leave the church, and love evaporates somewhere. If any conflict of interests arises (material, ambitious, careerist), or differences arise in the understanding of ritual practices, then Christian brothers and sisters become indignant at each other and begin to quarrel. Sometimes it comes to real war.

True, the apostles also had disagreements, and in ancient times Christians argued, but arguing does not mean hostility. Previously, everyone understood that love had the main priority in any matter. Love is above any canons and rules, and love is always right (See 1 Cor. 13:13). St. John Chrysostom explained: “What you say may be emeralds and diamonds, but if you do not have love, then you hit your brother on the head with precious stones.” Christ said: “By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). This is how it has always been: “The multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul; and no one called anything of his property his own, but they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32). “It is right that we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers, because your faith increases, and the love of each one of you increases among you all” (2 Thess. 1:3). The apostles constantly edified Christians in love: “Achieve [12] love; be zealous for spiritual [gifts] (1 Cor. 14:1) ... so that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph. 3:18-19). Beloved! let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God (1 John 4:7). He who does not love has not known God, because God is love (1 John 4:8). No one has ever seen God. If we love each other, then God abides in us, and His love is perfect in us (1 John 4:12). And we knew the love that God has for us and believed in it. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16). Let everything with you be done with love (1 Cor. 16:14). I pray that your love may increase even more and more in knowledge and in every feeling (Phil. 1:9). Complete my joy: have the same thoughts, have the same love, be of one accord and of the same mind (Phil. 2:2). Above all, put on love, which is the sum of perfection (Col. 3:14).”

You see how simple it is: Christians - disciples of Christ - are recognized by one criterion - by love. And without true love, everything that dresses up in the clothes of Christianity will only be a masquerade.

Nowadays, many temples are being built and many people consider themselves believers. And Christ said: “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8). Most likely, formally there will be many believers, but “due to the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12), and Christ will not consider faith without love to be faith. It is precisely this impoverishment of love that we observe today even in the Christian Church; it is precisely this impoverishment of love that is the root of all church problems.

The word “love” in human language has many meanings and interpretations. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify here: Christian love does not grow on earth, it is a Divine flower, Christian love must be learned from Christ Himself (Matthew 11:29). Christian love is not sentimentality, not charity, or even self-sacrifice, although it can manifest itself in all of this (1 Cor. 13: 1-3). Christian love cannot be understood by logic, nor can it be measured by human reason. It must be sought in the field of metaphysics.

(This was an excerpt from the chapter “The Christian War” of the book “THE FUTURE OF OUR PAST”, which can be downloaded here: https://proskinima.org/future.doc)

[1] https://azbyka.ru/dictionary/10/matfey_alfavitnaya_sintagma_23-all.shtml#f5

[2] Hieromonk Matthew Vlastar. Alphabetical Syntagma. Chapter 7. About murders in war and about those who kill robbers.

[3] “Echo of the meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch: two views on the situation.” Interview with guests of the Ekho Moskvy radio station, abbreviated. Echo of Abkhazia No. 2, January 17, 2012, p. 3. https://www.era-abkhazia.org/data/echo/2012/echo_02.pdf

[4] “Georgians and Abkhazians will try to be friends with their families.” Interview with guests of the Ekho Moskvy radio station, abbreviated. Echo of Abkhazia No. 2, January 17, 2012, p. 4. https://www.era-abkhazia.org/data/echo/2012/echo_02.pdf

[5] Archpriest Valentin Sventsitsky. Citizens of the sky. My journey to the hermits of the Caucasus Mountains.

[6] “Today, according to custom, I serve in the cathedral, but from now on I will no longer take part in the public services of our Church... Hitherto I have prayed for the prosperity and peace of the Japanese Empire. Now, since war has been declared between Japan and my Motherland, I, as a Russian subject, cannot pray for Japan’s victory over my own Fatherland. I also have obligations to my Motherland and that is why I will be happy to see that you fulfill your duty towards your country.” A “District Letter,” in which the bishop blessed Japanese Christians to fulfill their duty as loyal subjects, but reminded: “Whoever has to go into battle without sparing his life, fight not from hatred for the enemy, but out of love for your compatriots... Love for the fatherland is a holy feeling... But in addition to the earthly fatherland, we also have a heavenly fatherland... This fatherland of ours is the Church, of which we are equally members and according to which the children of the Heavenly Father truly constitute one family... And together we will fulfill our duty regarding our heavenly fatherland, which is due to anyone... And at the same time, we will fervently pray that the Lord will quickly restore the broken peace...” See https://www.odos.ru/dostigshie/13-nick-jap .php

[7] For example, the monks of the Great Lavra, Kinot (the government of Athos), as well as the later famous elder Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) and Bishop. Vasily Krivoshein. Both subsequently never spoke about the true reasons for leaving Athos after the war: the communist government tried all Greek citizens for collaborating with fascism. https://mondios.livejournal.com/50528.html#comments

https://www.isihazm.ru/?id=298

[8] https://lib.atheo-club.ru/index.php?action=show_article&a_id=79

[9] See https://compromat.ru/page_9701.htm

[10] Much has been written about Vlasov and the Vlasovites. We do not set out to condemn any of the ROA soldiers, nor any of its junior and middle-ranking officers. If anyone had been there at that time, it is difficult to say who acted and what prompted some to collaborate with the Germans. However, the motives for the general’s betrayal and the goals of his closest associates are somewhat different things. These “commanders” could not but know what the ROA was supposed to serve. We will try to be as objective as possible in this assessment and give the floor to the great Russian philosopher, who lived and worked in exile and had no reason to love the communists: “The goal of Germany was not at all to “liberate the world from communists,” and not even that to annex the eastern countries, but to depopulate the most important regions of Russia and populate them with Germans” (I. A. Ilyin Sobr. Soch. M. “Russian Book” 1993, vol. 2 p. 11). This is about the question of what the ROA was supposed to help and what Ridiger the elder (Fr. Mikhail) and the younger (the future patriarch) helped.

[11] The question, in general, is not even which side Alexei Ridiger (like his father) was on during the war, it is a matter of his conscience. But can such a person be the patriarch of that Rus', which was on the side of the other? And this is no longer a matter of only his conscience, for we must, are obliged to know who this man was, who was called a spiritual shepherd.

[12] Greek διώκετε, that is, literally “chase” love; in all matters it should be the main goal.

What about the Nazi soldiers whose belt buckles read “God With Us”?

This slogan had nothing to do with Nazism and was on the buckles of German soldiers since 1847 - much like the inscription “God is with us” was on the coat of arms of the Russian Empire. The Nazis simply inherited this traditional uniform element from their predecessors in the German army.

National Socialism itself as a doctrine was irreconcilably hostile to Christianity. As the Chairman of the Nazi “People's Tribunal” Roland Freisler said at the trial of the Christian and anti-fascist Helmut von Moltke: “The mask has been dropped. In only one respect are we and Christianity similar: we demand the whole person.”

So, the cause of wars, at a deep level, is human sin, at a more superficial level, it is a conflict of political or economic interests, and religious slogans are attracted only later.

Achilles

Views: 2,872

Archpriest Valentin Sventsitsky (1881–1931) is a famous spiritual writer and publicist. A member of the Moscow “Religious and Philosophical Society”, he was familiar with many Russian philosophers. He dreamed of becoming a monk, but with the blessing of the Optina elder Anatoly (Potapov), he got married and took holy orders in 1917. He was a preacher for the Volunteer Army. He did not emigrate; in 1920 he returned to Moscow. In 1922, he was arrested and served in Butyrka prison together with Sergei Fudel. Served exile in Tajikistan. Upon returning from exile, he served in Moscow, preaching the idea of ​​spiritual improvement, which he called “a monastery in the world.” He openly opposed the 1927 Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). From 1928 he served exile in Siberia. Before his death in 1931, he wrote a letter of repentance to Metropolitan Sergius, asking for reunification. Buried in Moscow.

We bring to your attention his article “War and the Church” (in abbreviation).

***

I

Which priest, especially military priests, has not faced the question:

- The Gospel says: “Thou shalt not kill”, “those who take the sword will perish by the sword”, “love your enemies” - and you, father, pray for the “granting of victory”, bless murder and war?

And which priest himself was not embarrassed by these questions?

Philaret’s Catechism says:

"Question. Is every taking of life a criminal murder?

Answer. It is not unlawful murder to take one’s life because of one’s position, such as:

1) When a criminal is punished with death according to justice.

2) When the enemy is killed in a war for the sovereign and the fatherland.”

And not another word!

You can read articles of praise from spiritual writers about heroes dying on the battlefield. But “praise” in itself is not proof. And no matter how many such praises are written, the question of the Christian attitude towards war essentially remains unresolved. The great philosopher of the Russian land, Vladimir Solovyov, wrote about the meaning of war, but how many average intellectuals, not to mention poorly educated people, read his moral philosophy (“Justification of the Good”) or “Three Conversations”?

In general, the question of the Christian attitude to war is hushed up. He is considered "ticklish".

At best, they are ready to “forgive” the priests that, out of everyday weakness, they make a “compromise” by blessing the war: “Wife... children...” At worst, they suspect malicious deception on their part.

Those who refuse military service “for religious reasons” evoke general sympathy: they are ready to be seen as more consistent Christians.

The commandment “thou shalt not kill” is so categorical that any attempts to reconcile it with the permissibility of war for Christians seem to be insincere sophistry aimed at justifying obvious evil.

Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the Orthodox Church is deeply right in its attitude towards war.

Christianity does not fundamentally deny war.

Not all war is evil from a Christian point of view.

There may be such a war, which not only is not a “compromise” to bless, but a direct duty of the Christian Church.

II

Everything that is most alive, most spiritual can be turned into a dead letter of the law.

“Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

These words burned the pagan world. For they were not only a “commandment”, but also an expression of Divine love for people.

Thus spoke the One who voluntarily took upon himself all the sins of the world. This is what His disciples said, for whom this love was not an abstract “rule”, but a living reality.

In our days, even here, dead dogmatism has turned out to be possible, turning the life-giving spirit into the deadening letter of abstract dogma.

Leo Tolstoy is one of the most dangerous enemies of the Christian Church.

For two reasons:

Firstly, he is absolutely sincere about his mistakes.

Secondly, his most anti-Christian errors in the field of theoretical and moral are intertwined with truly Christian scriptures. As a result, the truth conquers the heart, and along with the truth, unprepared people greedily perceive the false, “simplified” Gospel from Tolstoy, which devastates the soul, separating believers from the Christian Church.

What is the result?

Here's what.

Tolstoy's disciples do not have Tolstoy's soul. He could not convey to them his heart, his conscience, his genius. He gave them the teaching. This teaching rejects the Divinity of Christ and the Church with its sacraments, trying to replace everything with the commandment of love and non-resistance to evil.

But a living feeling of love encounters insurmountable obstacles on the path of its growth in our evil, sinful nature and in the evil, sinful environment around us, which is a “collective evil” that has accumulated over centuries.

These obstacles can only be overcome by the united efforts of the Church. That is why anyone who breaks away from the Church blocks his way to the commandment of love, understood not as an abstract rule, but as an achieved state of spirit, which the Apostle defines with the words “the totality of perfections.” Without receiving grace-filled nourishment from the church body through the sacraments, a person remains alone with his individual strengths in the fight against world and natural evil. As a result, his life freezes. And all calls for “love” inevitably degenerate into an insane “teaching.”

There is a huge difference: to do something because you love a person, or to do something because you need to love a person.

In the first case there is a living feeling, in the second there is a “rule”, “duty”, “dogma”.

The living feeling of love is never wrong. It is always true. Its "internal logic" can serve as a test for theoretical reasoning.

A “rule” based on reason can easily turn out to be a lie, because one logical error at the beginning is enough for the final conclusions to go in the completely opposite direction from the truth.

Nowhere is this reflected so clearly as in the Tolstoyans’ reasoning about the war.

Not loving people in a Christian way, but only recognizing the teaching about this love, they decided the issue of war according to the letter of the law, according to a dead dogma, and although, apparently, as if rejecting war in principle and refusing military service “for religious convictions” ", fulfill the commandment of love for enemies - in spirit, in the inner living meaning of Christianity, they distort it as much as the “wax” figures in museums are a distortion of the living image of a person.

How should a Christian approach war, deciding this issue according to conscience and spirit, and not according to dead dogma?

III

War is a great disaster.

And everyone who argues that it is impossible for Christians to participate in war loves to talk about its horrors.

It turns out like this:

Those who justify war do not understand how terrible it is; if they did, they would not justify it. And they try in every possible way to awaken the “hard heart” with stories about violence, cruelty and “a sea of ​​human blood”...

It is difficult to measure human suffering. And really, I don’t presume to decide who is hurt more by the “horrors of war”—Garshin, who goes to war to “kill,” or some sectarian who throws down his rifle and refuses military service “for religious reasons.”

But in any case, you need to firmly establish:

— The fundamental question of the admissibility or impermissibility of war for the Christian conscience does not have any connection with the difference in the assessment of “horrors.” Everyone recognizes these horrors, which means there is no need to dwell on them.

After all, if war is permissible, it is not at all because it causes “mere pleasure.” And if it is unacceptable, it is not at all because people see to what extent it is terrible.

The issue of war is being resolved on a completely different plane.

IV

The main mistake of those who deny war is that they consider two completely different words to be equivalent:

War and murder.

By substituting the same word “murder” instead of the word “war,” according to the exact word of the Gospel, they declare all war a sin, for murder is a sin.

But we have to think about why murder is a sin. And then it will become clear that “murder” and “war” are far from the same thing.

The commandment “thou shalt not kill” is given in the Old Testament. And next to this commandment, the same Old Testament lists a great many crimes for which the “death penalty” is imposed! It is absolutely clear that the murder prohibited by God meant a murder that was an expression of a person’s evil will - his “dislike” for his neighbor. Christ, having expanded the concept of “neighbor” to include “enemies”, naturally expanded the content of the commandment “thou shalt not kill.” But, however, he expanded it based on the principle of love. Murder, from a Christian point of view, remains a sin solely as a violation of the comprehensive commandment to love one’s neighbors.

In the vast majority of cases, murder is indeed a violation of the commandment of love, and therefore we are accustomed to generalizing this commandment to such an extent that it has acquired a categorical character. We say: “All murder is sin.”

But if we make a mistake regarding the content of the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” when we give it such an unconditional character, then we aggravate this mistake even more when we include war within the framework of this commandment, i.e., a concept significantly different from the concept of “murder.” . In murder, the goal is always assumed: “destruction of the human person.”

In war, the goal is victory, and the destruction of life is not always a necessary means to achieve this goal.

For example, if the enemy is offered to surrender, he agrees to the demands made and surrenders - “murder” will not happen, because “victory” will have already been achieved.

From here it is clear that in war, as in an action that does not specifically aim to kill a person, the question of this murder must be transferred from an absolute basis to a relative one. If “murder” is a sin because it violates the commandment of love, then even more so only that war is a sin that violates this highest principle of love. In other words: not all war is a sin, but only that war that pursues an evil goal, for the moral significance of war is determined by what one strives for victory in the name of.

V

The second misconception, closely related to the first, is that war is contrasted with “love for enemies,” losing sight of the fact that sometimes war can be the inevitable and only possible manifestation of active love.

This question was classically resolved by Vladimir Solovyov in “The Justification of Good.”

Read the following lines:

“The meaning of war is not exhausted by its negative definition as evil and disaster; there is also something positive in it - not in the sense that it is normal in itself, but only in the fact that it can be really necessary under given conditions. ...For example, although everyone will agree that throwing children out of a window onto the pavement is in itself an ungodly, inhuman and unnatural act, however, if during a fire there is no other way to remove the unfortunate babies from a burning house, then this terrible act becomes not only permissible , but also mandatory. Obviously, the rule of throwing children out of a window in extreme cases is not an independent principle on a par with the moral principle of saving the perishing; on the contrary, this last moral requirement remains here the only motivation for action; there is no deviation from the moral norm here, but only its direct application in a way, albeit incorrect and dangerous, but in such a way that, due to real necessity, turns out to be the only possible one under the given conditions. Doesn’t war also depend on such a necessity, due to which this method of action, which is abnormal in itself, becomes permissible and even obligatory under certain circumstances?

In other words, according to Solovyov, the “dangerous” way to effectively express one’s love in this case was to throw babies onto the pavement, with the risk of killing them. The “murder” here was not an “evil will.” At its core was love, the desire to save. In the same way, when an entire people has to be saved from the flames, there may be a situation in which it is necessary to use measures dictated by love, but entailing inevitable sacrifices, without which, under the given conditions, it is impossible to do.

“Killing people in war,” just like “throwing children onto the pavement” (since there is no other way of salvation), is not an “independent principle of morality,” on the contrary, and here the demands of love remain the “only impulse.”

Thus, here too the moral content of “evil murder” and war in the name of saving others is completely different. Therefore, the commandment “thou shalt not kill” cannot be extended to war, which does not always contradict the commandment of love for enemies.

VI

And finally, the third and perhaps the most fatal mistake of those who fundamentally condemn war is that the question of war is reduced to a choice:

- Or “kill” (these are those going to war).

- Or “thou shalt not kill” (those refusing military service).

In fact, such a choice does not exhaust the question at all. There may be wars in which a Christian has to decide something completely different, namely the question:

Whom to kill?

There may be a situation in which one has to choose between two inevitable murders. So to speak, of two evils - choose the lesser.

And then a Christian going to war seems to say:

- If this is inevitable, it is better that the criminal be killed and the innocent remain alive.

But those who refuse war choose something else:

“Let the innocent be killed and the criminal live.”

In fact, imagine this example: a regiment of soldiers protects civilians from the advancing Bolsheviks.

Both civilians and the soldiers protecting them know very well that if the Bolsheviks win, almost the entire population will be destroyed. Past experience makes this assumption an absolutely certain fact. After the Bolshevik invasion, women were found dishonored and mutilated, old people and children were shot. Under such conditions, tell me in all honesty, can a refusal to continue the war be called a refusal to kill? Wouldn't a regiment of soldiers who threw down their rifles on the basis of the commandment "thou shalt kill" really kill? Wouldn't the soldiers, having refused to protect innocent people and thereby betraying them to be killed by the Bolsheviks, be participants in those murders that would have been committed by the wrong hands?

One must arm oneself with all the dishonesty of a fanatical mind in order to answer this question in the negative. And you must completely extinguish the living feeling of love in your heart and replace it with a completely soulless dogma, so that under such conditions you can throw down your arms and imagine that it is precisely this “refusal of military service” that is dictated by Christian love!

Opponents of war will ask:

- What: fight? Kill?

Yes, fight, and if you can’t win otherwise, kill. Because choice is inevitable. The choice is not between “kill” and “don’t kill” - but between “kill” the villainously attacking Bolsheviks and “kill” innocent civilians who will be shot from Bolshevik rifles.

In a moral sense, an accomplice who allows a crime to happen is even more guilty of murder by someone else's hands than one who does it at his own risk. After all, both commit murder, but the first risks his own life and takes full responsibility for what he has done; the other “washes his hands” and, avoiding a fatal confrontation, also avoids moral responsibility.

They say:

- You have to love your enemies. How can I kill the one I love? If I love, he is no longer an enemy. If you are not an enemy, you cannot kill.

Yes! We must love our enemies! But where does it say that you shouldn’t love peaceful, innocent residents? And if you love them too, then the question of an enemy disappears. It is not because you must “hate” the villain that you must defend the defenseless with weapons, but because you have no other way of protecting the victim whom you love as a Christian from the villain whom you also love as a Christian. You know that murder is inevitable - and only because of this do you make a choice.

To wash your hands and say - I love both of them equally - means falling into such dogmatism that borders on the most hopeless Pharisaic hypocrisy. Firstly, such identical love is virtually impossible, but even if it were possible, there remains, besides love, a sense of justice - and it should force one to make a choice in favor of the innocent victim.

You can’t brush the question aside and say:

“I know one thing: don’t kill!” This is God's commandment. Let the villain kill - I will not break the commandments.

No, you will! Because, no matter how much you justify yourself with a “formal excuse” that you did not cock the rifle, which means you did not kill, for the sake of conscience, “essentially”, it will remain immutable that everyone who had the opportunity to protect against a murderer and did not do so, - himself a participant in the murder.

What is the excuse that you “love your enemies” and therefore could not kill the villain - when you could allow the murder of an innocent victim? You and the villain killed her - one pulled the trigger, the other, having the opportunity to kill the criminal, did not prevent him from committing the crime.

It is impossible to refer to the will of God and seek in it justification for your connivance!

You can't say:

- I will fulfill the commandment “thou shalt not kill” - this is my duty - and then let God’s will be done!

After all, it is not without the will of God that life creates such conditions under which Christians have to make this terrible choice between two inevitable murders. It is not without the will of God that villainous invasions are allowed, and of course, it is not without the will of God that Christians raise their sword to defend innocent people, just as it is not without the will of God that some refuse “conscription.” This means that “the will of God” does not relieve us of moral responsibility for this or that solution to the question: “What to do in this case?”

To refuse protection on a formal basis and, instead of obeying the voice of love urging us to take up arms, to obey the dead letter commanding us to throw them away - and then referring to the “will of God” - means preaching moral suicide.

So, given the inevitable choice between two murders, the question comes down to who is considered the villain in a given clash and who is the innocent victim. In other words, the question is transferred to a completely different plane. The question is no longer whether war is permissible or unacceptable in principle, but what kind of war is permissible. Here the Christian faces an assessment not of the war itself, but of the goals it pursues. From this it is clear that Christianity allows war in the name of those objectives that coincide with Christian ideals. In an unjust war, what is “unchristian” is not the war itself, but the injustice in the name of which it is waged. On the contrary, war is blessed by the Church only to the extent that its ultimate goal can be blessed.

Summarize.

Analysis of the essence of war leads us to the conclusion that from a Christian point of view, war is not only permissible, but sometimes can be morally obligatory.

It is acceptable because it does not exclude the possibility of truly Christian love for enemies. And it is obligatory because sometimes it can be the only possible form for expressing active love. This is in cases where in war the choice is not between shedding and not shedding blood, but between two inevitable murders, one of which is the murder of a villain, and the other is the murder of an innocent victim.

(..)

IX

(..) But the historical path is long. Not the whole world “immediately” becomes the Church. There is a world process, a gradual revelation of God's truth in the world. In this process, there are a lot of very opposite forces at work outside the Church - both evil and good. The Church condemns some of them, blesses others - depending on the role they play in the world process.

No matter how difficult it was for the apostles, humanly speaking, to recognize their persecutors, representatives of the pagan power, as “holy power,” in history they did this by inspiration from above, guided not by reason or human feeling, but by those providential data that were revealed to them in their spiritual insights.

Power is an organized force based on certain norms, on the law, which is the minimum of morality.

This organized power is a necessary condition for the existence of a people who have not yet been organized in spirit and truth by the Church. Because it is from God.

But state power is impossible without armed protection. Therefore, the apostles, blessing power as a holy force in the historical process, thereby blessed military force, which serves as its basis.

If there were no power organized by law, human society would turn into a wild anarchy, and if there were no “armies”, people would arm themselves like gangs of robbers. This would be ruin for the world, and therefore for the Church cause.

This is why, according to the apostle, government officials do not wear the sword in vain. The temporary abuse of this sword does not change the positive meaning of power in the historical process. In principle, power remains “from God,” because in general it is, as it were, the threshold to that internal unity that is given by the Church. If the state cannot create a living organism out of people, because a living organism does not require the mechanical connection of people, but their internal, spiritual, mystical union, which is carried out in the Church, if the state cannot fulfill this highest task, then it can still unite people for joint cultural life and ensure the further development of society.

Having recognized all power from God, the apostles thereby recognized armed force, which is the basis of state existence, from God. They potentially recognized the war as an inevitable historical fact.

The Church does not need “weapons”: “put your sword into its sheath.” But the Church is a perfect organism, and the state is an organization of external order. It organizes people by coercive force. The whole world as a whole has not yet matured into a church organization. The world lies in evil. In a sense, this is a sick organism. And without the participation of a sharp knife, sometimes it is impossible to cope with a malignant tumor.

The state has no other way to protect its existence except by force of arms.

And if a state organization is recognized as good in the historical process, the military force that ensures its existence must also be recognized as a relative good.

War should also be recognized as good, depending on the historical reasons that give rise to it, and depending on the state goals that it pursues.

Thus, here, outside the Church, the moral meaning of war is determined by the ultimate goal in the name of which the state is fighting against the state.

So, from the analysis of the commandment “thou shalt not kill” and the concept of “war”, a positive solution to the question follows: is war permissible from a Christian point of view?

The moral assessment of war cannot be absolute. War can be both good and evil depending on the goals it pursues. The individual Christian conscience should not be disturbed by a principled attitude towards war. In principle, war is unacceptable. But the conscience should be very troubled by the question: in the name of what is the war being waged? For if not all war is evil, then not all war is good. A Christian can only accept a war whose goals can be blessed by the Church.

From the analysis of the events in the Garden of Gethsemane, it follows that it is unnecessary to arm the Church with a sword, since absolute Truth and Truth, embodied in the God-Man and realized in the Church in the historical process, carry within themselves all the strength for their final triumph. Just as those who raise a sword against her carry within themselves the guarantee of their destruction.

And finally, from the analysis of the Christian attitude towards power, a positive attitude towards war follows, since it is really necessary in the historical process.

X

Many people confuse love with a sweet smile. To a patient whose only salvation lies in the amputation of his leg, giving sweet water instead of a “cruel operation” is not love!

Or do you think there was no love in the heart of the Son of God when He drove the merchants out of the temple with a whip? Or when He, in fiery anger, uttered these menacing words: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites... Fools and blind!.. Serpents, brood of vipers! How will you escape from condemnation to Gehenna?”

Yes, the green Galilee was reflected in the eyes of Christ. But the formidable Golgotha ​​was also imprinted in them. Yes, He did not break the bruised reed. But He cursed the worthless fig tree and announced that the ax was already lying at the foot of the dead tree!

In the Son of God there was Divine love, but there was no weak sentimentality!

Pobedonostsev once wrote to Tolstoy that they understood Christ differently.

For Pobedonostsev, He is a Husband full of strength.

For Tolstoy - relaxed.

I am not one of Pobedonostsev’s fans. I believe that the Church will not recover for a long time from the difficult legacy that he left behind as chief prosecutor.

But here - Pobedonostsev was right!

The “non-resisters” took His Divine power out of Christ. They replaced His fire-burning sermon with sentimental words about “non-resistance to evil” and reduced the great work - the salvation of the world on Calvary - to the simple murder of a good man for preaching chastity and vegetarianism!

Having thrown away their souls, they breathed a completely different spirit into dead schemes.

Christ embraces the whole world with Himself. He loves everyone... He calls everyone to Himself. He extends his hand to everyone, like the drowning Peter. But he sweeps away evil and throws dead dead wood into the fire.

In His hands is a sharp ax. But he carefully watches over a growing world striving for perfection. And he doesn’t trample weak ears of corn under his feet - much less he doesn’t cover up this reprisal with a sweet smile, filled with conscious or unconscious falsehood.

That Christ who is portrayed as a “Tolstoyan”, refusing “military service”, “not eating meat”, crucified and then, like everyone else, even very good dead people, rotting, is not our, not Christian, not Orthodox Christ !

Our Christ is a Man of Power.

His words burn with the fire of indignation when He denounces. They burn their conscience when He talks about sins. They resurrect when He approves of us.

Our Christ is the conqueror of the world. Not a slave to decay, although an honest vegetarian, as the Tolstoyans think. Our Christ is the Son of God, resurrected and conquering death, redeeming the world with His suffering and giving us the promise of a general resurrection.

He commanded us to love people - with effective love. A terrible choice will not stop us, and if in a terrible hour this effective love tells us: “Take the sword - there is no other way to save your neighbor,” we will fearlessly take it!

We confess that the Lord created the Church - and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. We know that the Cross is an invincible weapon of truth. We know that the rapists who raise the sword against her will die.

But if the history of the world leads us to an inevitable clash with the rapists of the people, we will raise our sword against them and carry the Life-Giving Cross of the Lord ahead of it!

We know how to feel sorry for the unfortunate. We are ready to “leave debts to our debtors.” We are ready to forgive personal insults. We are ready to give our last shirt even to those who demand too much. But when we see how a child is offended or a woman is insulted; when the villains take the last shirt not from us, but from our neighbor, when the defenseless, weak, unfortunate are subjected to violence and there is no other way to save them as soon as by raising the sword, we will raise it not in our own name, but in the name of that effective love, which Christ commanded us.

For us, Christ is not a “mortal creature” - but a resurrected God-man. And His teaching is not a dead collection of “rules.” Non-tear-off calendar for every day.

We confess the living Christ. We are in living communion with Him in the Church. And we believe not in dead letters, but in the living meaning of His words.

Source: Sventsitsky Valentin, prot. Dialogues: Sermons, articles, letters / Comp. S. V. Chertkov. M.: PSTGU, 2010

Discuss the article on the forum

LiveInternetLiveInternet

Against foreigners

One of the most striking pages in the military history of Russian monasticism were the events of 1581, described in the “Tale of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery.” The monks had to fight with the soldiers of the Polish king Stefan Batory, who was besieging Pskov. It is noteworthy that the monks were the first to attack the Lithuanian detachment, which was accompanying carts with looted property and prisoners. “When they reached the Pechersky Monastery, then the monastery people rushed at them and drove them away; All their property was taken away and brought to the monastery,” said the chronicler. The inhabitants of the monastery repeated a similar sortie the next day, and among the captured trophies there was even a live camel. Having learned that more than 30 Poles, Hungarians and Germans were being held captive in the Pskov-Pechersk monastery, the king sent an army to its walls on October 29 under the command of the governors Ketler and Farensbach. On the Russian side, the defense was led by military commander Yuri Nechaev. The foreigners managed to break through the fortress wall and break into the monastery. The priests, monks and “ordinary people” of the monastery (workers and local villagers), having created a prayer service to the icon of the Dormition of the Most Pure Mother of God, “became indestructible, like Mount Zion.” The battle lasted the whole day, and as a result, the Polish-Hungarian detachment had to retreat. The monks captured Voivode Ketler, and Farensbach was wounded. The military leader Bornelissa (Burnamissa) sent by the king also failed to take the monastery. During the enemy attacks, the monastery lost more than 40 people killed and wounded. For foreigners, the participation of monks in the war was something unusual. The Great Crown Hetman Jan Zamoyski, sent by Stefan Batory for negotiations, wrote to the Pskov-Pechersk abbot Tikhon that his monks, “forgetting about their monasticism, flooded the temple of the Lord and the holy place with blood.” However, the brethren themselves were confident that their cause was just. According to legend, during the battle the enemies saw God's help over the monastery - “many warriors in white robes.” Again, the inhabitants of the Pskov-Pechersk monastery had to change their rosary beads to swords 30 years later, during the Time of Troubles. On April 27, 1611, the interventionists of Hetman Khodkevich fired at the monastery from cannons. In retaliation, the monks and laymen, having prayed, launched a foray into enemy fortifications, killed several Poles and captured prisoners. According to the text “Tales of the Invasion of Foreigners on the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery,” many miracles occurred during the siege, which lasted until May 11. During the Time of Troubles, the Trinity-Sergius Lavra also withstood a 15-month siege. But the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery was not able to withstand the pressure of the enemy.

Solovetsky "voivodes"

The history of the Solovetsky Monastery, which was actually the main outpost of the Russian state on the White Sea, is considered to be the most eventful with military events. A military garrison on Solovki appeared after 1571, the number of archers reached 1000. The abbots themselves acquired cannons and built fortifications. Thanks to this, the Solovetsky Monastery successfully repelled the onslaught of the Swedes in 1582 and 1611.

Icon of Peresvet and Oslyabi

“The Solovetsky monks have become so accustomed to the military

The Solovetsky Monastery was not only a spiritual center, but also an impregnable military fortress, and they found it possible to ask Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich not to appoint special governors to the Sumy fort for the management and command of the monastery and “arrival archers”, but to leave this matter to the Solovetsky abbot and the brethren , wrote church historian Archpriest John Syrtsov. — In 1637, the last governor, Timofey Krapivin, handed over all written files, prison keys, and all the weapons to the Solovetsky abbot Bartholomew and went to Moscow forever. Now the Solovetsky rector has literally become the “northern governor.” Since 1654, due to the Swedish threat and the small number of archers, the monks themselves had to learn the art of war. A written military “schedule” appeared on Solovki, where responsibilities were distributed among 425 monks placed “under arms”. The elders and their henchmen were “assigned” to different towers with cannons. As a result, the monks not only learned to wield weapons, but also “to a certain extent adopted the spirit of military courage and courage.” And given the religious fanaticism characteristic of many of them, warrior-monks who were not afraid of death were a formidable force. However, instead of fighting the foreigners, the monks soon turned their weapons against the royal archers. Not accepting the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, the Solovetsky Monastery rebelled, and from 1668 to 1676 successfully defended itself against Moscow troops. Only with the help of a 10,000-strong army did voivode Ivan Meshcherinov finally manage to take Solovki. At the same time, almost all the schismatic monks died - out of 700 inhabitants of the monastery, only 14 people survived.

The Solovetsky Monastery was not only a spiritual center, but also an impregnable military fortress.

Siege of Pskov: ill. Boris Chorikov from the book “Picturesque Karamzin” (1836)

An allegorical depiction of the assault on September 8 in the painting “The Siege of Pskov by King Stefan Batory in 1581.” K. Bryullov, 1843

In the imperial army

It should also be mentioned that in the 18th century the institution of military clergy emerged in the Russian imperial army. It also included hieromonks—priests who had taken monastic vows. In the navy, they even became the predominant category of priests, since they were not related to family and could participate in long sea voyages. The “black” military clergy existed in Russia until the First World War. Some examples of the military valor of army hieromonks can be found on the pages of the magazine “Bulletin of the Military and Naval Clergy” dated October 1, 1916. At the front in the Vilna province, the regimental priest of the 276th Kupyansky infantry regiment, Hieromonk Anatoly, voluntarily went on reconnaissance on the night of July 29 in order to encourage and reassure the soldiers with his presence. However, near the enemy's wire fences, the hieromonk was seriously wounded by an explosive bullet in the thigh, damaging the bone. For this feat, the authorities nominated Father Anatoly to the Order of St. Vladimir, 4th degree. Summing up, it is difficult to disagree with the words of the Athonite monk, abbot Alexy (Prosvirnin), who sees in warrior monks a combination of “worldly warfare” and “spiritual warfare” in their highest manifestations.

Author: Timur Sagdiev

Magazine: Mysteries of History No. 43, October 2022

Monasticism and war. What does it mean to be a soldier of Christ?

Report of Bishop John of Urzhum and Omutninsk at the XXVIII International Christmas educational readings.

Direction “Ancient monastic traditions in modern conditions” (Danilov Stavropegial Monastery of Moscow, January 28–29, 2022)

And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels made war with the serpent, and the serpent and his angels were braced, and they were not able to do it, and no place was found for them in heaven. And the great serpent, the ancient serpent, called the devil and Satan, who flattered the entire universe, was placed, and he was cast into the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

Open 12:7–9

War on earth has not ended since the beginning of time. Here there is the cunning of the enemy - the devil, who alone is our real enemy, but it is he who, through violence, forces the human race to fight among themselves for the illusory, corruptible crowns with which he, the devil, rewards his champions.

So it was before the feat of our Hero in the fight against the devil - our Lord Jesus Christ was the first to win. He is the First Warrior among the human race. Life, Path and Truth. By Christ, Satan was defeated and dethroned from the throne of power over the old Adam. This Victory illuminated our entire further path in time until His Second Coming.

There is often an opinion in society that Christianity, in particular monasticism, is incomparable with such a concept as “war”. Sometimes even Christians, who know that this is not so, do not always clearly understand how the Church teaches to relate to military service and war. And if the general principles in this area, expressed, for example, in the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, are known, then the specific and private problems that soldiers face in their daily lives are often perplexing.

You can dispel your doubts only if you turn to the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition of the Church. In the works of the holy fathers, both ancient and modern, an interesting relationship between these concepts is presented.

It must be said that the above topics were largely peripheral for the holy fathers. “This is not surprising, because when determining its attitude to any phenomenon, the Church proceeds, first of all, from the fact that the main value for a person is eternal and blessed life, possible only under the condition of man’s unity with God. From here follows the greater interest of the holy fathers not in war as a social phenomenon, but in war as an internal spiritual battle” [1]. It is no coincidence that the Holy Fathers call this struggle warfare, that is, they use a word from the military vocabulary. The battle, or battle, with sin is a vivid image that shows that a monk is also a warrior participating in battle. But, as Christ says: My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), so the battle waged by the monk is not visible to the world. Nevertheless, the holy fathers did pay some attention to problems related to war and military service, and their thoughts can help in resolving many issues that arise among Orthodox Christians today.

Speaking about military service itself, it should be noted that the holy fathers of the Church never considered it incompatible with the Christian way of life or as an obstacle to salvation. On the contrary, many of them directly refuted this opinion.

In the works of St. John Chrysostom we read: “You make military service an excuse and say: I am a warrior and cannot be pious. But wasn't the centurion a warrior? And he tells Jesus that “I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed” (see Matt. 8:8). And, surprised, Jesus says: Truly I say to you, I have not found such faith in Israel (Matthew 8:10). Military service did not serve as an obstacle for him at all” [2].

Saint Basil the Great gives more examples from Scripture, saying: “Is the military rank really deprived of hope of salvation? Is there really not a single pious centurion? I remember the first centurion, who, standing at the cross of Christ and realizing the power through miracles, when the insolence of the Jews had not yet cooled down, was not afraid of their rage and did not refuse to proclaim the truth, but confessed and did not deny that truly he was the Son of God (see Matt. 27 :54). I also know another centurion who knew about the Lord, while he was still in the flesh, that He is God and the King of hosts and that one command was enough for Him to send benefits to those in need through ministering spirits. The Lord confirmed his faith that it was greater than the faith of all Israel (see Matt. 8:10). But Cornelius, being a centurion, was not worthy to see an angel and finally received salvation through Peter? (see Acts 10)” [3].

Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus says the same: “Since there are many different kinds of pious life: monastic and communal life, desert and city life, civil and military life... in every kind of life one can please God, it is not without reason that it is said: whoever is a man, fearing the Lord? He will establish a law for him on the path that he has chosen (see Ps. 24:12), that is, in the kind of life that a person decides to lead, he will give him decent and appropriate laws. Thus, Saint John the Baptist advised the questioning tax collectors not to take more than what was established and for the soldiers not to offend anyone, to be content with dues, that is, certain food (cf. Luke 3:12-14)” [4].

Saint John Moschus cites the story of Abba Palladius, in which he describes a warrior who, not being formally a monk, in his free time from military service, indulged in such ascetic deeds that he was even set as an example for the monks: “In Alexandria there was a warrior named John. He led the following way of life: every day from morning until nine o’clock he sat in the monastery near the entrance to the Church of St. Peter. He was dressed in sackcloth and wove baskets, was silent all the time and did not speak to anyone at all. Sitting near the temple, he went about his work and cried out only one thing with tenderness: “Lord, cleanse me from my secrets (Ps. 18:13), so that I will not be ashamed in prayer.” Having uttered these words, he again plunged into a long silence... And then again, after an hour or more, he repeated the same exclamation. So he exclaimed seven times during the day, without saying a word to anyone. At the ninth hour he took off his sackcloth and dressed in military clothes and went to his place of service. I stayed with him for about eight years and found a lot of edification both in his silence and in his way of life” [5].

Saint Basil the Great wrote a letter to the same true Christian, saying: “I recognized in you a person who proves that even in military life one can preserve the perfection of love for God and that a Christian should be distinguished not by the cut of his dress, but by his spiritual disposition” [6] .

However, according to the teachings of the Church, military service is impossible for those who have dedicated themselves to the priesthood or monasticism. “The 7th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council commands that once those who have been admitted to the clergy or monks should not enter either military service or secular rank, having taken off their sacred attire and changed their clothes according to the custom of those; otherwise, those who dared to do this and do not repent and do not again accept the clothing characteristic of sacred life, which they had previously chosen for the sake of God, commands to be anathematized: for whoever dared to do something like that is no longer subject to eruption, since he sentenced himself to this before condemnation, having laid down taking off his priestly clothes and becoming a layman" [7].

There have been violations of this rule in the history of the Church. Everyone knows that St. Sergius of Radonezh, at the request of Prince Dimitri Donskoy, blessed two of his monks, former warriors of Peresvet and Oslyabya, to participate in the Battle of Kulikovo. In a similar way, the Monk Athanasius of Athos, at the request of Empress Zoe, blessed his tonsured commander Tornikius to return to military service for a short time in order to save the country from the invasion of the Arabs.

In a later era, mass cases of participation of the Greek priesthood in the armed struggle against the Turks during liberation uprisings are known; In memory of this, a unique monument was even erected in Crete, depicting a priest with a gun in his hands. Montenegrin priests and even the metropolitans themselves took an even more active part in the bloody struggle against the Turks. However, these were still exceptions caused by special circumstances of the time.

In peacetime, the transition of a priest or monk to military service was clearly considered a sin. A typical example is from the “Suffering of the 42 Martyrs of Amoria” (9th century). When these Byzantine officers were being led to execution by the Muslims who had captured them, and they reached the Euphrates River, the Muslim judge called one of them, Saint Craterus, and said to him: “You were once a cleric, belonging to the rank of the so-called priests, but, having rejected such a degree, then he took up a spear and weapons, killed people; Why are you pretending to be a Christian, having renounced Christ? Shouldn’t you better turn to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and seek help and salvation from him, when you no longer have any hope of boldness before Christ, whom you voluntarily renounced?” To this Saint Craterus replied that this is precisely why he is all the more obliged to shed blood for Christ in order to gain atonement for his sins [8]. As we see, the martyr himself did not justify his act, but perceived it as a sin.

It is also worthy of mention that Metropolitan George of Kiev, in his essay “The Contest with the Latin,” among the errors of the Roman Catholics, mentions that they allow “bishops and priests to go to war and defile their hands with blood, which Christ did not command” [9].

Having left a brilliant military career as an outstanding officer, and perhaps even a general in the army of the Russian Empire, Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) wrote about the positive qualities of a warrior: “Fortitude is one of the first advantages of the military, both earthly and spiritual. Warriors experienced in battle consider a brave attack on an enemy formation to be a sign of courage, but an incomparably greater one is to stand silently with sullen firmness under the cannonballs and grapeshot of enemy batteries, when the general plan of the military leader requires it. He can rely most on such warriors; our hero Jesus Christ most relies on such warriors and crowns them with spiritual crowns” [10]. In this sense, monks can follow the example of valiant warriors.

Indeed, just as warriors during battles have neither their own household nor family, but only serve their military leader, so a monk who has taken vows of non-covetousness, chastity and obedience has the goal of getting closer to God. It is no coincidence that during monastic tonsure, when the newly tonsured person is dressed in monastic robes, the priest says prayers that quote the words of the Apostle Paul from the Epistle to the Ephesians: Stand therefore, having your loins girded with the truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet, ready to preach peace, and above all take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery arrows of the evil one, and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:14-17). Here, in metaphorical images, the monk is represented as a warrior going out to battle the enemy. But he is not armed with weapons of murder, but puts on the armor of righteousness, accepts the shield of salvation, and finally receives the sword of the Spirit, that is, the rosary, “which is the word of God, to the constant prayer of Jesus, for the name of the Lord Jesus is always in the mind, in the hearts and in You must have your own lips, saying continually: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner [11]. Prayer thus appears to be the main weapon and main occupation of the monk; with its help you can protect yourself from the arrows of the evil one, and, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, “cut off even the head of a dragon” [12]. Here we are talking not just about the usual struggle with thoughts, but about the battle with the devil himself, the father of all sin, that is, we are talking about the possibility of winning not a local victory in a battle, but winning a war.

The military hierarchy has its own ranks, distinguished by those who are more or less skilled in military matters. Among monks there is something similar to ranks: novices, monks, monks and schema-monks, and they all need to learn prayer and wield these weapons in order to achieve their goal. St. Theophan the Recluse echoes Chrysostom: “wielding this sword, the soul, while still protected from fired arrows, can with full courage stand against the enemy... tearing the enemy’s armor, kill the dragon and cut off his head” [13]. But not only prayer, according to Saint Theophan, is our weapon, but the fulfillment of God’s commandments. The commandments that the Lord gave us can be compared to the military regulations, which warriors are obliged to observe so that their efforts lead to victory over the enemy.

And St. Nicholas of Serbia mentions military service as a metaphor for a Christian’s attitude to earthly life: “True Christians have always considered their lives to be military service. And just as soldiers count the days of their service and joyfully think about returning home, so Christians constantly remember the end of their lives and the return to their Heavenly Fatherland” [14].

Already in ancient times, we find “military” analogies in Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer, martyr Justin the Philosopher and hieromartyr Cyprian of Carthage. All these images can be reduced to four points:

1. All Christians are soldiers of Christ.

2. Jesus Christ is the commander.

3. Baptism is a sacrament and an oath of the banner.

4. The Church is God’s military camp [15].

Speaking about “spiritual” war, the holy fathers call monastics the true warriors of Christ.

St. John Climacus compares monks with warriors: “Let us explain in this word the very image of the warfare of these courageous warriors: how they hold the shield of faith to God and their mentor, turning away from them any thought of unbelief and moving (to another place), and always raising the sword spiritual, they kill with it any personal will that approaches them, and, being dressed in the iron armor of meekness and patience, they reflect with it every insult, injury and arrows; They also have a helmet of salvation - the prayer cover of their mentor" [16].

Saint Macarius of Alexandria in his work “Two Types of Rules” says: “Monks are the true warriors of Christ.” This idea is borrowed from the Apostle Paul: Therefore, endure suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No warrior binds himself to the affairs of this life in order to please the commander (2 Tim. 2:3-4).

Saint Macarius himself fulfilled this covenant of the Apostle Paul in practice, so he included it in his charter. In the world, people, willy-nilly, serve vanity and everyday worries. Almost all the time they are immersed in everyday life, in their problems; vanity and life's adversities are their destiny. And that is why Saint Macarius calls the monks servants of Christ, highlighting three main principles that distinguish true warriors of God:

1. The soldiers of Christ must arrange their procession in such a way as to demonstrate the most perfect love in everything - to love God with all their soul, with all their heart and with all their strength.

2. They must show each other the most perfect obedience, be peace-loving, meek, modest, not proud, not offensive, not slanderers, not mockers, not long-winded, not pretentious, not pleasing to themselves, but to Christ God.

3. They must serve without laziness, be zealous in prayer, perfect in humility, disposed to obedience, constant in night vigil, joyful in fasting.

So, monasticism and warfare have much in common. But unlike the warriors of the earth, our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in high places (Eph. 6:12). The goal of this battle is not the acquisition of wealth or glory, but the future entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. What warriors and monks also have in common is suffering and self-sacrifice. According to the word of the Savior, greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12). In this sense, a person becomes like Christ, who voluntarily gave His life “for our salvation.”

The Church especially prays for the Christ-loving army of their country, “for the deliverance of the captives,” for the repose of the fallen soldiers, since their feat in defending their Motherland and the Christian faith brings the soldiers closer to Christian ascetics and martyrs. The most striking examples of this tradition for the period of the Great Patriotic War were, among other monastics, the Venerables Lavrentiy of Chernigov and Seraphim Vyritsky.

We know quite a few examples when young people, scorched by the war and more deeply perceiving the need to care for the salvation of the soul in eternity, left the world and chose monastic life. These are the elders beloved by the people of God, Archimandrites Alipiy (Voronov), Kirill (Pavlov), Naum (Bayborodin), nuns Adriana (Malysheva), Sofia (Osharina)... But I would like to give two more examples of special service in the war in the monastic rank.

The first is about the feat of Father Anthony (Smirnova; 1844–1914).

And during the First World War, it happened more than once that in extreme circumstances a worldly warrior lost heart. And then a spiritual warrior came forward with a cross in his hands - and gave strength to the tired soldiers. Hieromonk Anthony (Smirnov), who served on the Black Sea minelayer Prut, belonged to such warriors.

I would like to once again tell our high assembly about the victorious crown of the Russian naval hieromonk.

“After the water alarm, only the commander, senior officer, senior mine officer and several specialists were supposed to remain on the ship. But, contrary to the rules, the ship’s priest, Father Anthony, also lingered on deck. With a cross in his hands, he blessed the sailors who did not dare to leave their native ship. In addition, according to eyewitnesses, he crossed enemy ships with a cross in order to neutralize their actions.

Meanwhile, the commander of the Goeben, Captain Zur See Richard Ackermann, having made sure that the Russian sailors were not going to capitulate, gave the order to open fire on the Prut. At 7.35, six 150-mm guns from a distance of 25 cables began to fire at the minelayer slowly sinking into the water. The first shells missed the target, but the second salvo hit the Prut's forecastle. The boatswain died and a fire started on the sinking ship. The commander of the Prut ordered the officers to leave him alone - he himself, as befits the captain of a dying ship, was going to stay on it until the end.

But at that moment another shell exploded near the deck. Captain 2nd Rank Bykov was wounded in the back and shell-shocked by a shrapnel, and was thrown overboard by the blast wave from the next shell. The commander grabbed the overloaded boat with his hands, but sharply refused the offer to climb into it and ordered the sailors to be rescued first. There weren’t enough places in the boats for everyone, and a lot of people were floating around the sinking Prut, clinging to cork bunks.

For fifteen minutes, “Goeben” continued to fire at the defenseless “Prut”. All this time, the sailors floating around their ship were in terrible danger - after all, the mine was already blazing like a fire, and the mine supply could detonate at any minute. A simultaneous explosion of 710 mines would not have left any chance of salvation for the people who left the Prut... But time passed, and the monstrous explosion never sounded. And then “Goeben” suddenly stopped firing, turned around and left the battlefield. Was it not the prayers of Father Anthony that helped this?..

There was a roll call in the overloaded boats. The only thing the sailors could not find was Father Anthony. Someone said hesitantly that they had last seen him on the upper deck of the minzag. And at that moment, among the clouds of smoke enveloping the burning “Prut”, the ship’s priest appeared. He stood on the bottom step of the ladder, almost touching the surface of the sea, and crossed the overloaded boats with a cross. The ship's commander shouted from the water:

- Father, sit down! Mines may explode!..

Other officers and sailors joined Captain Bykov:

- Save yourself, father!

- “Prut” will sink now!

– Jump into the water, we’ll pick you up!..

“Save yourself,” answered the gray-haired priest. “There are not enough places in the boats for everyone, you are young, but I have already lived in this world and am old.”

After these words, Father Anthony returned to his cabin, put on his robe and, going out onto the burning deck with a cross and the Gospel in his hands, blessed the team once again. Then he headed inside the dying ship. The sailors, swallowing tears, followed their beloved shepherd with their eyes, the officers raised their hands to the visors of their caps, saluting the valiant priest.

A cold October dawn flared up over the sea. Two Turkish destroyers remained on the battlefield and began to pick up survivors from the water. The nose of the Prut rose higher and higher, and the flames engulfed almost the entire minelayer. It was 8.40 when the flaming “Prut” stood almost vertically and, with the St. Andrew’s flag fluttering on the broken foremast, slowly disappeared under the water...

The feat of the naval clergyman was appreciated. Father Anthony became the first Russian military (and the only naval) priest to receive Russia's highest military award during the First World War - the Order of St. George, 4th degree (the Highest order on this was signed on November 4, 1914). Moreover, he became the first priest to receive this award posthumously” [17].

Priests and bishops who remembered the Great Patriotic War talked about how many wonderful things happened at that time. This encouraged them and confirmed that they had made the right choice.

Thus, Archpriest Nikolai Agafonov talks about one incident in the biography of the future Patriarch Pimen, who during the war years was still in the rank of hieromonk. When Germany attacked the USSR, Hieromonk Pimen was serving exile in Central Asia, and already in August 1941 he was drafted into the army. He served as an infantryman in the 702nd Infantry Regiment. One day his regiment “... found itself surrounded and in such a ring of fire that the people were doomed. The regiment knew that there was a hieromonk among the soldiers, and, no longer fearing anything but death, they fell at his feet: “Father, pray. Where should we go?”

Hieromonk Pimen had a secretly hidden icon of the Mother of God, and now, under the fire of the Nazis, he tearfully prayed before Her. And the Most Pure One took pity on the dying army - everyone saw how the icon suddenly came to life, and the Mother of God extended her hand, showing the way to a breakthrough. The regiment was saved...” (Let us also recall that the future Patriarch in the victorious year of 1945 was illegally exiled to Vorkutlag and there he confessionally “sealed” his service for the sake of Christ to the Fatherland during the war years).

Here the whole essence of the war was reflected in the words of Suvorov, which have not lost their relevance to this day for the spiritual warriors of Christ: “A soldier must be brave, firm, decisive, fair, pious. Pray to God, victory comes from Him.”

The words we hear were fulfilled in their lives by the confessors, our holy fathers. It is unknown whether any of us will become a confessor, but we must always be ready. Therefore, let’s take all this as advice from our mentors. A true monk must be a spiritual warrior of Christ. May God grant us all to be like that!

______________________________________________________________________________ [1] Sergius Korotkikh, priest. What does “thou shalt not kill...” mean? // Saved. 2005. No. 6 (15). [2] John Chrysostom, St. To Jews and Greeks and heretics; and to the words: “Jesus was invited to a marriage” (John 2:2). [3] Basil the Great, St. Conversation 18. On the day of the holy martyr Gordius. [4] Theodoret of Cyrus, bl. Commentary on one hundred and fifty psalms. Explanation of Psalm 24. [5] John Moschus, Blessed. Spiritual meadow, 73. [6] Basil the Great, St. Creations. St. Petersburg, 1911. T. 3. P. 133. [7] Matthew (Vlastar), Hierom. Alphabetical syntagma. M., 1996. [8] Maksimov Yu.V. The feat of the 42 martyrs of Amoria in the context of Orthodox polemics with Islam. [9] Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church. Book 2. M., 1995. [10] Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Letters to monastics, 78. [11] See The rite of tonsure into the minor schema. [12] John Chrysostom, St. Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 24. [13] Theophan the Recluse, St. The Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Ephesians, interpreted by St. Theophan. [14] Nicholas of Serbia, St. Thoughts on good and evil, 3–4. [15] Karashev A. Attitude of Christians of the first three centuries to military service. Ryazan, 1914. P. 8. [16] John Climacus, Venerable. Ladder, 4:2. [17] Bondarenko V.V. Heroes of the First World War. Quote from: https://biography.wikireading.ru/160191.