Religious scholar Ilya Vevyurko on how Christianity relates to hostilities
[ad_1]
Does pacifism contradict Christian doctrine? How does Orthodoxy define its attitude to wars and armed conflicts, taking into account the commandments “Thou shalt not kill” and “Love your enemies”? What is a “just” war in terms of Christianity? What should a priest do if he does not agree with the position of the hierarchy? These and many other questions from the field of Christian ethics became relevant in the light of the church trial of the priest John Burdin, who criticized the SVO. “Kommersant” talked on this topic with an associate professor of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, a religious scholar and biblical scholar Ilya Vevyurko.
Priest John Burdin is a former rector of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in the village of Karabanovo (Kostroma Region). Father John became known to the general public after last spring a protocol was drawn up against him on “discrediting the army” (part 1 of article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). The cleric condemned “fratricide” in Ukraine in a speech to parishioners and warned that at the liturgy he would ask God to “end the war.” Someone present reported his words to the police. As a result, the court fined the priest, after which he continued to serve in the rural parish. Subsequently, the priest criticized the Russian Orthodox Church and its position on the special operation already in his personal Telegram channel. In the fall, John Burdin submitted a petition to the Synod for a transfer to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, but received no answer. In March of this year, a decree was issued to temporarily ban the ministry; a church investigation began against the clergyman. The basis for the church investigation was the publication of Father John in the Telegram channel. The Kostroma diocesan court conducted a “research on the activities” of Father John – the posts of the priest were painstakingly studied by the secretary of the court, Hieromonk Nikon. In the final document, the hieromonk reproached the priest for pacifism, among other things. Criticism of this ideology is devoted to several pages of help for the court, but pacifism was not included in the list of accusations. On June 16, the church court considered the case of Father John and found him guilty of violating the priestly oath. The clergy established that Mr. Burdin denies the “holiness and saving powers” of the Russian Orthodox Church, doubts the unity of the Church and the holiness of some saints, and “sows distrust in the Church.” Ultimately, the court ruled ban Father John in the ministry.
– During the church investigation of John Burdin, the secretary of the Kostroma diocesan court, hieromonk Nikon, concluded that pacifism, which “priest Burdin is trying to hide from the accusations against him, is not compatible with the actual teaching of the Orthodox Church, in particular, set forth in the Fundamentals of the Social Concept” (an official document of the Russian Orthodox Church describing the basic provisions of its teachings on issues of church-state relations and on a number of modern socially significant problems. Adopted in 2000). It turns out that the call for peace and an end to “fratricide” not only falls under the articles on “discrediting the army”, but also contradicts the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, many believers, as well as non-religious people, think that pacifism follows directly from the teachings of Christ. Is it possible to give an unambiguous answer about the origin of this ideology?
– Here we need to separate two questions: is pacifism a part of the Orthodox dogma and is it what the priest “hid behind” “from accusations against him”? As for the first question: the Orthodox dogma condemns an unjust war and allows, although it does not consider it a good thing, a just war. As for the second, I don’t know, since I didn’t follow the development of the conflict, but in itself a prayer for peace is not an expression of pacifism, since the idea of pacifism does not consist in the desire to end the war, but in the affirmation of the inadmissibility of any war, including even a defensive one.
– And yet, is it possible to find the roots of pacifism in Christian teaching? Maybe in early Christianity?
– You can find the roots if you extrapolate the commandment of love for enemies from the personal level to the public level. But the imputation of such an extrapolation to the state would contradict the words of Christ, “God’s is God’s, but Caesar’s is Caesar’s.”
Pacifism is more of a secular ideology based on the concept that non-resistance will put an end to wars, because people are fundamentally focused on preserving life, not destroying it. What this might look like in practice is partly shown by Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy of peaceful resistance. But then it is all the more significant that the Indian National Congress, having come to power in 1947, could not fulfill the task of creating a state without an army, and, in fact, did not even try, foreseeing its unrealizability.
— The case file says: “Pacifism in different eras of church history was present in heretical doctrines – among the Gnostics, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigensians, Tolstoyans, revealing, like other utopian ideologies, a connection with ancient chiliasm.” Is pacifism really present in their teachings? If so, does this mean that pacifism has its basis in Christian heresies?
— I have not come across information about the presence of pacifism among the Gnostics and other mentioned heretics, except, of course, Tolstoyans. This may refer to the desire to evade the performance of public duties in general, associated with the deeply pessimistic (rather than utopian) view of the Gnostics on the nature of the material world.
By the way, about the Tolstoyans. The court repeatedly compares the position of Father John with Tolstoy’s pacifism. What is behind this, do you think?
– Probably, to make the wording of the accusation more clear and convincing. But it should be noted that in the Determination of the Holy Synod of February 20–22, 1901, there was not a word about Leo Tolstoy’s falling away from the church about his pacifist views. Although they, of course, were the subject of controversy with him by other thinkers of that time.
— Why did the church court pay attention in the first place to pacifism? There were many other allegations.
– Did the defendant himself use the term “pacifism” in his statements?
– No, as far as one can judge from the materials of the case. Moreover, in personal correspondence, John Burdin stated that he did not consider himself a pacifist.
– If the accused himself did not speak about pacifism, then here there was a substitution of the thesis, connected with the impossibility of talking about peace, the fundamental conditions of which are unknown to our public, including the Church.
– Why then are several pages of the case materials devoted to criticizing this ideology? Could it be that the ROC wanted to publicly demonstrate its position on issues of pacifism?
– I think that the Kostroma diocese (it is more correct to call a specific church organization, and not a church that consists of millions of people) perceived the prayer for peace as a manifestation of political disloyalty and decided to dissociate itself from it.
Are you aware of cases analogous to the case of Burdin on the question of pacifism? Can the conclusion of this particular court be used as a precedent for other similar cases?
“Personally, I don’t know. Although such cases are possible – as in any era of increased political passions. This decision can become a precedent in similar cases.
– So the problem in the Burdin case is not in the conflict between the ideology of pacifism and the Orthodox dogma, but in the understanding of the justice or injustice of the war? There are over 40,000 priests in Russia, and it is unrealistic, to say the least, to expect everyone to share the same opinion. Who in the church makes judgments about whether certain military actions are just? How, from the point of view of Orthodoxy, should a cleric act if his opinion differs from the opinion of the hierarchy? If he sincerely believes that, for example, the patriarch is mistaken, and therefore, in his mind, an “unjust” war is taking place.
– In the church, authority is informal, and opinions are formed largely intuitively. The authority of the hierarchy concerns dogmatic and canonical issues, while the Christian people are obliged to preserve church tradition, that is, to ensure that the hierarchy itself does not teach heresies, and it would be unhistorical to expect infallibility from the bearers of this authority in historical situations.
Let me remind you that at one time a council of bishops, convened by False Dmitry, deposed the Hieromartyr Hermogenes (Hermogen, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ from 1606 to 1611, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.— “b”), and the priests in the churches were obliged to proclaim many years to “Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich.” Therefore, strictly speaking, in moments of doubt, the priest has to rely on his Christian conscience. At the same time, the hierarchy can legally ban him from serving for disobedience, for example, for refusing to read the prayer established by the patriarch in the church. The priest must accept this with humility and wait for God to judge – whether in history, or after the end of history.
– And in the history of the Orthodox Church were there clashes on the basis of contradiction with the ideology of pacifism? During periods of war, armed conflicts.
– In Byzantine historiography, a case is described when Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas (Emperor of Byzantium from 963 to 969.— “b”) wanted to equate all fallen soldiers to martyrs, but the church did not agree – the emperor’s demand, obviously, meant a political effect, and not spiritual grounds. There was also a controversy between the Trans-Volga elders and Saint Joseph Volotsky (the founder of the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, church writer, Orthodox saint.— “b”) about the punishment of heretics (an early 16th-century dispute erupted over Joseph’s opinion that heretics could and should be executed.— “b”). But in general, with regard to war, the church has always looked at it as a consequence of the fall, which in certain historical circumstances inevitably “works”. And then the business of the state, the people is to be worthy of victory, not defeat.
– The case file emphasizes that pacifism is contrary to the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church. But what about other denominations, such as Catholics? Or is the attitude towards a “just” war a basic one, formulated before the church schism and reformation?
– Except for some relatively late Protestant sects (namely, sects, in the sense that they never embraced an entire society and, therefore, were not responsible for it), not a single Christian denomination doubted the fundamental right of the state to wage just wars. It’s even ridiculous to ask about Catholics, and Protestant thought gave rise in the 17th century to the doctrine of the “right of war and peace” (set out in a treatise by the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius in 1625.— “b”), which formed the basis of the ideological justification of the wars of the New Age. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the ideological service of the war without prior notice is one thing, and the experience of its tragic inevitability is another.
— And what about other religions represented in Russia? How unique is the critical position of Christianity towards pacifism?
– There are no pacifist religions, precisely because there are no pacifist societies, and religion not only allows a person to be above society, but also creates special conditions for his life in society, for the reproduction of the meaning of life. Another question: what kind of war is just and why? It is not so easy to unite representatives of different faiths here, as politicians would like. In essence, war comes as something inevitable, like covid, because some hour is coming, better than others, probably known to economists. But the motivation in this war and in achieving peace (which is the result of any war) depends on how the country lives in the future. It is the question of the image of the future, in my opinion, that is obscured by disputes about pacifism.
[ad_2]
Source link