Q&R: Peace: A Passion for Peace & a Predicament

Question:

Bradley, I agree with your passion for peace. My first husband spent a number of tours in Vietnam. I lived for years with the consequences of the physical and psychological damage that was done to him. I have a conflict though. How do you propose that a Country in the predicament that Ukraine is in handling the Russian invasion?

Response

While I do have political opinions, it is not for me to suggest how one state should respond to another. What would be ethical, what would be effective, what would be nec

essary from a state position? I have no voice in that conversation.

So then, I learned from Brian Zahnd that it becomes super-important to ask, “When we ask, ‘what should we do,’ who is WE?” Ukraine? NATO? America? Canada?”

Or is “WE” rather the Church, God's alternative society in this world, speaking prophetically for God's kingdom vs. the ways of the kingdoms of this world.

So, where I might enter the conversation is by asking what an individual Christian is called to or what the Body of Christ should do or say.

That’s a much clearer question. Christians are not to kill others. “Put away your sword. Beat your swords into plowshares. Disarm yourself.” ALL Christians believed this for the first 300 years of Christianity.

Further, Churches are never to propagate or incite killing others. “Neither will they train for war anymore.” When? In heaven? No. Under the New Covenant established by Jesus.

And their priests and pastors are NOT to be ministers of propaganda but prophets who call God’s children to repent of hatred, violence, and war.

Now to Ukraine. And Russia.

Prophetically speaking, I would begin with a message to Christians and the Church in the aggressor state.

As Pope Francis implored the Patriarch of Moscow, “Do NOT become Putin’s altar boy.” But he did. He has led the Russian Orthodox Church into apostasy. How? By claiming dying for Russia in the invasion of Ukraine makes them actual martyrs for the faith. That’s simply anti-Christ.

So, I believe both the individual Christian and the Body of Christ should condemn Church-sponsored recruiting or conscripting of soldiers for military invasions, and to reject the blasphemy of pre-authorized absolution for death-dealing, which the Patriarch has granted (as did priests on both sides at Gettysburg, by the way). I have personally felt the need to make public statements about this because of my association with the Orthodox Church.

At the same time, I am also aware of Russian Orthodox priests who have risked or gone to prison to take this same stand inside Russia. I have nothing to lose. They do. So I look to them as an example of a true prophetic witness.

As for Ukraine and its NATO allies, I can understand their military resistance to the bombardment and invasion. Politically, it may even be necessary. But here we must see the vast distance between the necessary and the Good, rather than conflating and glorifying both. As Simone Weil said, there is an infinite distance between the two, spanned only by the breadth of the Cross.

I don’t feel right about condemning those in grief and anger as they’re being bombed and occupied from my privileged peace. But I was able to participate in and learn from a Zoom conversation with a Ukrainian priest in Ukraine while bombs were pelting his city and his daughter was standing beside him.

What do I say? Nothing. What should he say?

I have worried that the Ukrainian Church might begin to mirror the Russian Church’s nationalism and militarism, thereby displacing the priestly role as ministers of peace and reconciliation and turning their homilies into opportunities to do what Kiril of Moscow was doing, but from a weakened position. Gratefully, the priest didn’t. What I learned (if I heard him rightly) was:

• He uses the pulpit to remind people that Jesus is Lord ahead of all earthly kings, and that our baptism is our pledge of allegiance to Christ’s kingdom first, including the Jesus Way of peace.

• He recognizes that his nation is indeed in a war, and that fear, despair, grief, and malice are the darkness they experience under bombardment. Where might he invite them into the faith, courage and protection of Jesus, even with family members entering the military? How might the Church remind the flock that Jesus is with them in the storm and hail of missile attacks? And where might protecting one’s family by fleeing be a greater priority than one’s property or national boundaries (see Matthew 24:16).

• Without condemning or demonizing those whose convictions lead them into battle, as the Church, how might we remain a harbour where we still hear Jesus call us away from hatred and violence rather than hearing our leaders incite it? I worry for priests and churches of any nation that become cheerleaders for nationalist vengeance rather than healers who mitigate the moral injury that comes from participation in death-dealing. But there are those examples who seem to have stayed the gospel path and shine brightly... In engaging with such people, I do not presume to come as an advisor but as a disciple. “How did you manage it when the Jesus Way is not hypothetical?”

I once heard a talk where the speaker said, “Hitler was not the great exception to the Sermon on the Mount. He was the ultimate test case.” I think about that a lot. And I think about “the Confessing Church” in Nazi Germany as an example. How do we resist and overcome evil without escalating it? Do we overcome through bigger armies, longer guns, and a greater will to use violence? I’d say we've tried that thoroughly and found it utterly wanting.

Jesus’ call to peacemaking was specifically given to people under a brutal, foreign, military, imperial occupation. Perhaps, then, the crucifixion of Jesus by the Roman regime in league with the religious leadership of Jesus’ own faith, is the true and ultimate test case.

This needs much more careful thought and prayer, and I will continue to do so with help from readers like you. Blessings!