In January 2003 the North American section of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship sent President George Bush an appeal to not to launch a war against Iraq. The text of that appeal and the list of signers (plus statements by several Orthodox hierarchs) is posted in full on the OPF website .

In the November 2003 issue of Touchstone magazine, there is an article by Fr. Patrick Reardon sharply criticizing the OPF's Iraq Appeal.

Here is Jim Forest's reply to Fr. Patrick's essay.

It is no easy thing to reply to Fr. Patrick Reardon's long essay, "Not So Quiet on the Eastern Front." I am reminded of a line in the film "Amadeus" in which the emperor's one mild criticism of a Mozart opera is that it contained "too many notes." I am trying to avoid preoccupation with particular "notes" in his essay and instead to respond to its main themes.

One theme is Fr. Pat's a critique of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship's Iraq Appeal, issued prior to the U.S. attack on that country.

He describes the OPF Iraq Appeal as a pacifist document and refers again and again to a pacifist ethos, pacifist ethic, etc. But our Iraq Appeal did not refer to wars in general. It was a statement objecting to a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

If the designation "pacifist" is understood as a description of people who condemn and oppose all war, then the Orthodox Peace Fellowship is not a pacifist association. Our statement of purpose includes these sentences:

"Members of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship try to use life-protecting methods to safeguard life and creation...

"Using our vocation and whatever special gifts and resources God has given us, especially our participation in eucharistic community, we strive to undertake constructive action on behalf of those who are endangered, from the womb to old age...

"Aspiring to eliminate violence as a means of conflict resolution, we promote resolution of conflicts by mediation, negotiation and other forms of nonviolent action...

"While no one can be certain that he or she will always find a nonviolent response to every crisis that may arise, we pray that God will show us in each situation ways of resistance to evil that will not require killing opponents...

"We offer support to those whose conscience leads them to refuse participation in war and who struggle against evil in non-military ways. We support their conscientious objection as consistent with the Gospels and Holy Tradition..."

The full text is on the OPF website.

The word "pacifism" poses the additional problem of sounding like "passive-ism." But no Christian is permitted to be passive in the face of evil. As do several words with "ism" endings, it also suggests an external ideology rather than an effort to be regarded as children of God, a blessing which Christ our Lord promised to peacemakers in the Beatitudes of the Gospel.

In our statement we declared that "the Orthodox Church has never regarded any war as just or good." We did not say that Orthodox Christians have never gone to war or that Orthodox pastors and hierarchs never blessed those who fought in war or that Orthodox Christians are immune to the ideologies of the particular societies in which they live. Certain wars have been seen, if not as just or good in themselves, as a lesser evil. As far as I am aware, however, the Church has always regarded war, even when there appeared to be no nonviolent alternative, as inevitably implicating those who take part in profoundly tragic, even horrific events that could not possibly be described in positive moral terms.

Fr. Pat objected to the use of the word "murder" in the Iraq Appeal. We used the term twice, first in referring to Saddam Hussein ("He came to office by intrigue and murder, and remains in power by the same means; he is his own country's worst enemy. The Iraqi people deserve to be rid of him.") and then again in remarking that the killing of noncombatants is murder. The alternatives - for example "collateral damage" - bring us into the world of agnostic Newspeak.

Our statement went on to ask the question: "Individual murderers are treated by psychiatrists and priests and isolated from society. But who heals the national psyche, the wounded soul of a nation, when it is untroubled by the slaughter of non-combatant civilians?"

By "murder" we meant the killing of non-combatants, whether intended or a consequence of targeting non-military objectives. In modern war, it is the very old, the very young and the ill who are the most frequent casualties. It is true that to speak about such killing is profoundly distressing, not least for those, like Frank Schaeffer, who have sons or other family members involved in the fighting. The comfort the Church brings us is the good news of the kingdom of God and the good news of Christ's victory over death. But in many regards the Church very often discomforts us with a Gospel that requires us to be poor in spirit, to grieve, to forgive, to bear the cross, to care for the least person, not to serve two masters, to turn the other cheek, etc. Just to look at an icon of Christ is often to be made profoundly uncomfortable, realizing the great extent I fail to follow his example or embrace his Gospel in daily life. We often fail to recognize our sins until someone holds us to account for ourselves. We readily deceive and delude ourselves.

A major theme in Fr. Pat's essay is the idea that God has entrusted the United States of America with a divine mission. He refers approvingly to those who believe "that the Lord of history has laid on the United States of America, now and for the foreseeable future, a unique charge with respect to the preservation of world stability and the well-being of mankind."

There is, of course, much that is admirable about the United States, but I find it hard to believe that Fr. Pat really buys into the idea that America is the new Zion. Do I misread him? For me, draping the Cross with any national flag is an act of idolatry. I believe we serve our homeland best by being painfully aware of the many ways it falls short of the demands of the kingdom of God, keeping in mind that He whom we are attempting to follow said plainly that His kingdom was not of this world.

Another theme in Fr. Pat's essay concerns U.S. motives. He wrote: "...in many respects the United States was coerced into this international duty by reason of having decently intervened on behalf of friends, selflessly but with great reluctance, in wars that were not of its own making."

If U.S. motives for overthrowing the Hussein regime and occupying Iraq were humanitarian, there is a long list of other countries whose tyrants America would be obliged to overthrow even more urgently than Hussein. But I think U.S. motives in Iraq - as Fr. Pat also suggests - had more to with that country's oil reserves than concern for human rights. Indeed, the U.S. has often supported - even set up - states notorious for massive violations of human rights.

Another theme in the essay is the surrounding culture's challenge to the Orthodox Church to adapt itself to the American ethos in order to make it a more attractive choice for those who might in the future become Orthodox Christians. I share Fr. Pat's hope that increasing numbers of people will embrace Orthodoxy Christianity, but I believe it will happen not because Orthodox Christians become model patriots but rather because we become better Christians. Simply to live the Gospel - is this not what Christ asks us to do? Wherever we are? No matter in what country or time? Yet there is hardly a word in Fr. Pat's essay about the example or words of Christ beyond a passing reference to turning the other cheek.

If anyone in the Church is obliged to be a man of peace, it is the priest. The canons require that those who serve at the altar should have killed no one, not even by accident or in self-defense. Why is it that those most responsible for the Church's sacramental life must not be guilty of causing the death of another human being? This is a question Fr. Pat can probably answer better than I. Surely one dimension of this canonical principle is that it must have an inward as well as outward reality: the priest should be innocent not only of actual killing but of murderous thoughts or words which could inspire others to kill.

Christ told us that He came "to give life and to give it abundantly." We learn from the Gospel and through the Liturgy to regard each person, however damaged, as a bearer of the divine image and as someone who may yet find the path to salvation. Thus we struggle to save lives insofar as we are able - whether unborn children or even the lives of our enemies. As the Paschal hymn declares, "Let us call ‘brothers' those who hate us and forgive all by the Resurrection."

In Christ's peace,

Jim Forest

Secretary, the Orthodox Peace Fellowship

http://incommunion.org/