I guess there are two ways that we can approach this issue. I may refer to one as the the ‘perfect’ will of God as opposed to the ‘allowable’ will of God’. In this discussion I call the pacifist position the ‘perfect’ will of God and the ‘armed response position’ as the ‘allowable’ will of God.

There is no doubt that the Apostles were not soldiers nor were they men of war and ‘protecting’ the borders of nation states.

Yet, it is clear that very early -some- Roman soldiers converted to the faith or were at least men of faith. The Biblical examples include the following:

Cornelius was a Centurian of the Italian Regiment (Acts 10:1). A soldier in command of a hundred soldiers. He was also a man of deep faith which was heard by God and even an angel visited him. He was instructed to call for St Peter, who baptised Cornelius, but there is no record that Cornelius was told by either the angel or the Apostle that his office was ‘inherently’ sinful or to leave it.

The tradition of the Christian Church also records the conversion of the Roman soldier who speared Christ in the side as He hung on the cross. Longinus is said to have converted and was later martyred for his faith. Perhaps his words after Jesus gave up the ghost are a sign of his impending conversion, “Truly this was God’s Son.”

Then there is the Centurian who approached Jesus who asked for his servant to be healed. Jesus Himself said of the soldier’s faith..”I have not seen as great faith in all of Israel.”, and imediately healed the Centurian’s servant. There agains is no record of Jesus telling the soldier his occupation was -inately- sinful.

Then there is St John the Baptist, who was approached by soldiers who -actually- asked “What should we do?” considering him a prophet of God. Here was a perfect time for God and His prophet to make a ruling against soldiering, but however, St John answered.”Do violence to no man, neither accuse anyone falsely and be content with your wages.” This may be argued that the soldiers were involved in ‘police’ action, however, there is clearly -no- comment by the holy man of God for the soldiers to cease being soldiers. Indeed soldiers have always been involved in Police actions and the modern Police forces really only date to the last few centuries.

The Christian scholar Bingham (Antiq. XI 5,10) asserts that: “the ancient canons did not condemn the military life as a vocation simply unlawful..” (N & PNF, second series, Vol. XIV, page 28).

However, early Christians and leaders of the Church ‘did’ have a problem with a number os associated activities with soldiering of their era. These included the inherent paganism that accompanied Roman Legions. Often sacrifice had to be offered before roman idols or effagies of the Emperor, something that Christians were banned doing by their bishops and presbyters. Therefore there are cases where the early Church actually supported the men who refused to sacrifice and as a result had to leave military service. Those Christians who sacrificed were given thirteen years banishment from the Holy Communion, which was equilivant to the punishment for adultery at the time.

Another drastic step often required of Roman Army Generals was the renunciation or apostasy from Christianity to continue to serve in the Legions. This often caught the soldiers by surprise and there are very many famous martyrs that date from this era that refused to deny Christ (even though they had been Roman soldiers obviously for some time). The 40 martyrs of Sebaste are a famous example of Roman soldiers who preferred to be executed rather than deny Christ. The Eastern army of Licinius had resolved to ‘purge his army of all Christians” and forced sacrifice and apostasy.

Yet, the fact of the existence of Christians among Rome’s armies should not be taken as an implied ‘approval’ by the Christian Church authorities. Indeed, there are references to the exact opposite. St Basil’s Eighth Canon states:

“Our fathers did not think killing in war was murder; yet I think it advisable for such as have been guilty of it to forebear communion three years.” Ibid p. 605.

Thus St Basil placed on all returning soldiers who had been involved in active wars to abstain from Holy Communion for three years as a penitent. This confirms the Orthodox ideal that ‘killing always involves sin’ even legitimate/legal state approved wars or executions. However, it shows grace that killing in war and executions is -not- to be called ‘murder’ which is referred to in the Ten Commandments “Thou shall not murder.” Yet again, if the Christian had involved himself in denying Christ or sacrificing to Roman idols in order to gain military service again he was imposed a most severe 13 years ban from Holy Communion and could only be re-admitted before that time at the point of immanent death.

It is not appropriate for anyone to suggest that soldiers may not be Christian men of deep faith and love of God (No one has on this forum I believe said that) However, as in all war it is the associated crimes that go with war that are so obnoxious to men and women of peace. The violence against non-combatants (CD’s civilian deaths-collateral damage) is horrendous in this age of high altitude bombers. The violence against women by rape from soldiers in the field is rampant, those who think they may be dead tomorrow often throw off all sense or propriety today. The starvation and damage to children (land mines one example) is despicable. All these are grossly sinful and un-Christian behaviours.

If our enemy hides amongst mosques and in built up cities amongst the population and you seek to overthrow him or his government then the carpet bombing of these cities involves great sin. Of course the reduction of casualties to coalition forces is the view, however, in these circumstances there seems to be no choice but a large contingent of soldiers on the ground involved in house to house flushing out of the ‘armed’ enemy. This will involve huge losses to coalition forces and is unavoidable. If but one child is saved from being bombed to death, then the effort was worthwhile.

However, it has also been said that those who promote peace are either cowards or ignorant. This is extremely insensitive and quite untrue. In fact pacifists may indeed be amongst the bravest of all. Army chaplains and medicos like Smith and his Donkey came under constant danger and enemy fire yet continued in their peaceful service to others. A pacifist is someone who has decided that they -choose- not to kill. This is a highly commendable position and many have carried it through to their own assasination (Ghandi and Martin Luther King just two examples). Most of the Apostles were martyred as pacifists as were very many men and women of peace throughout the history of the Christian Church. There is absolutely no shame in the pacifist position at all. The charge that all pacifists are cowards or ignorant is quite erroneous. Jesus Christ Himself was the greatest pacifist who ever lived yet He was so brave to walk to His death willingly and without lifting a finger in objection.

I hope and pray in some small way this has helped to add to the understanding of soldiering and wars and the Christian response to it.

Peace and grace.

an Orthodox friend