On Conciliarity, War, and the Christian ResponsePart III. A Programme of Action

Toward a Conciliar Christian Response to War

Introduction: Unity as a Christian Norm

In the Easter season, the Church is called with particular clarity to remember the unity for which Christ prayed when He addressed the Father: “that they all may be one.” In this prayer, what is at stake is not merely outward cohesion, nor simply institutional belonging, but a living unity in God and in His love. For that very reason, the unity of the Church is not an ornament or a secondary ideal, but a matter of her very essence and of the credibility of her witness before the world.

0. Preliminary Condition

Before the Church addresses secular society with peacemaking initiatives and a moral word, she must first confront the divisions within herself.

1. Intra-Orthodox Level

   
   

   1.1 Convening an Inter-Orthodox Consultation / Commission

   
   

All Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches must take a first decisive step and consider convening an expanded inter-Orthodox consultation, or a special pre-conciliar commission, on peacemaking, unity, and the catholic witness of the Church. The need for such a discussion became urgent several years ago. Such a consultation, convened in accordance with the established practice of pan-Orthodox consensus, could become the first step toward restoring the conciliar voice of Orthodoxy.

1.2 Condemnation of the Justification of Aggressive War

A public and unanimous conciliar condemnation must be expressed with regard to those hierarchs and clergy who justify aggressive invasion into the territory of a sovereign state, since such justification is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel and to the canonical tradition of the Church.

Conciliar recommendations and mechanisms of pastoral response must also be developed with regard to such persons, including a call to public repentance as a path toward the restoration of ecclesial unity, while preserving all canonical procedures laid down in the rules of the Holy Fathers.

1.3 Teaching on War, Violence, and Peacemaking

The Church must articulate a clear, theologically grounded, and unambiguous teaching on war, violence, and peacemaking. Today, the Orthodox world lacks a shared language by which the permissible may be distinguished from the impermissible, and the tragic from the justified. What is needed is an oros, not a theologoumenon, affirming that the blessing of aggressive war, the sacralization of violence, and the identification of the Kingdom of God with geopolitical interests are distortions of the Christian faith and a particular manifestation of ethnophyletism, condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 1872 as a distortion of the catholic order of the Church.

1.4 Canonical Boundaries of Clerical Participation in Propaganda

The canonical boundaries of clerical participation in wartime propaganda must be clearly defined. Direct or indirect justification of violence, the use of ecclesial authority for purposes of mobilization, and the blessing of weapons must receive clear judgment and entail corresponding consequences.

1.5 An Inter-Orthodox Organ for Peacemaking

A permanent inter-Orthodox body or commission for peacemaking and conflict mediation must be established. Historically, the Church possessed a capacity for mediation, but today that capacity has not been institutionalized. Such a body could serve as a platform for negotiations, a channel of communication, and a space for the reduction of tension, thus enabling the Church once again to become not a participant in conflict but a mediator in dialogue and reconciliation between hostile peoples.

A canonical mechanism must also be established for the mutual recognition of anti-war decisions and practices among the Local Churches, so that no cleric or layperson subjected to ecclesiastical penalties for political reasons in one jurisdiction because of fidelity to the Gospel of peace would remain in a canonical vacuum in another, while preserving the principle of autocephaly and canonical order.

1.6 Protection of Repressed Clergy and Laity

The ecclesial dignity and recognized status of repressed hierarchs, clergy, and laity must be restored in cases where the penalties imposed on them are manifestly political in character. Many of those compelled to remain in Russia experience profound inner anguish because of the condition of being ecclesial “outcasts”: they are rejected by the official church of their own country and do not find acceptance on the part of the Ecumenical Church.

This is due in large measure to the fact that for centuries ecclesial pedagogy and formation were built around the principle that “obedience is higher than fasting and prayer.” Today, it is precisely through this principle that anti-war Christians are often held captive by fear of falling into heresy, schism, or some other form of ecclesial estrangement. In such a situation, the clear and resounding voice of a more authoritative ecclesial institution is especially important—namely, for Christians, an Ecumenical Council.

1.7 Restoring the Balance Between Obedience and Personal Responsibility

The balance between obedience and personal responsibility must be restored. There is an evident and pressing need for a deep and thorough re-examination of the place of those whom the Church customarily calls the laity—to restore to them, not merely in words but in the actual life of the Church, the dignity of the “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9), and with it personal rights and responsibility, without in any way diminishing the significance of the canonical hierarchy. Obedience cannot be absolutized to the point at which a person loses the capacity critically to discern between good and evil.

1.8 Hospitality and Ecclesial Support

The Church must restore and strengthen the forms through which the commandment of hospitality is fulfilled, and must also develop a real system of support for persecuted priests and laypeople: ecclesial shelters; temporary parishes, including on the territory of the Russian Federation; financial assistance; legal and psychological support; other forms of aid; and the possibility of continuing one’s ministry in other jurisdictions.

A network of official representations or missions for anti-war Christians in different countries must also be established. This would help overcome the condition of dispersion and isolation, make coordination, common prayer, educational and social activity possible, and serve as a sign that the Church truly does not abandon her own.

1.9 Conciliar Repentance

The ground must be prepared for conciliar repentance, and its practice must be developed. In the context of ongoing hostilities, when people are dying on both sides and mutual hatred does not cease, dialogue and any genuine encounter between opposing sides are profoundly difficult. Yet the Ecumenical Church must already now prepare for the time when the war comes to an end: by composing a conciliar penitential message, preparing rites for penitential services, petitions for forgiveness for participation in hostilities and for the justification of violence, establishing Church-wide days of prayer for peace, introducing the requirement of personal public repentance for hierarchs who justified and propagated the ideology of war, and defining paths for their restoration to ecclesial communion, including temporary suspension, epitimia, acts of repentance, and other such measures.

To this must be added the creation of a space of witness in which the voices of those who have suffered may be heard. This may take the form of open conferences, seminars, and publications. Importantly, the concern here is not only for repressed priests and Christians in Russia, but for all who have suffered during these terrible years of war. Thus, for example, it seems important that the Conciliar Church undertake the work of restoring ecclesial memory and dignity to all political prisoners, the killed, and the wounded—both physically and psychologically. For this purpose, Church-wide synodika could be created, similar to those now read in Russia on 31 October as part of the “Prayer of Memory” initiative. We are witnessing the sad tendency to reduce a human being to a statistical news item: “10 killed, 20 injured.” By creating a special working group, the Church could, insofar as her resources permit, painstakingly restore to these people their names and biographies, so that Christians throughout the world might pray concretely for the living and the departed.

Finally, an important form of conciliar repentance must be the development of formal educational and formative programmes. Repentance must be handed on; otherwise it will remain merely a historical episode which, if left unexamined, easily turns into revanchism with its slogan, “we can do it again.” The inclusion of themes such as error, distortion, and participation in violence in the curricula and standards of theological schools, colleges, seminaries, and academies could become one way of working through collective trauma.

1.10.Revision of Liturgical Rites

The Church’s liturgical heritage must be reviewed in a consistent and deliberate manner, and such rites as the blessing of weapons, prayers for victory, and similar texts must be removed from the Euchologia, since they are incompatible with evangelical principles.

1.11.Representation of All Strata of the Church

It is essential that the voices of all strata of the Church be represented at such a council: hierarchs of different ranks, theologians, philosophers, church servants, and ordinary Christians.

2. Pan-Christian Level

   
   

   2.1 A Space for Interconfessional Dialogue

   
   

What is further required is the creation of a space for interconfessional dialogue and mutual trust: mapping initiatives, organizing open and closed meetings, exchanging experience, and building networks of trust among Christians of different confessions.

2.2 A Common Recognition of War as a Spiritual Catastrophe

A pan-Christian dialogue must be initiated, and war—above all aggressive, offensive, and ideologically justified war—must be recognized together, at the interconfessional level, as a spiritual catastrophe and a grave sin against the human person, against peace, and against the very nature of Christian witness. What is needed is not a diplomatic formula, but a clear and binding definition affirming that the blessing of violence, the sacralization of war, and the use of Christian symbolism as an instrument of mobilization are a departure from evangelical witness. From this there should follow agreed forms of response toward the militarized part of the Christian world.

2.3 A Corpus of Practical Principles of Peacemaking

A pan-Christian corpus of practical principles of peacemaking must be developed as a norm of ecclesial life, including the rejection of the dehumanization of the enemy, the recognition that violence is inadmissible as a means of attaining “higher goals,” and the affirmation of the priority of mercy over ideology.

2.4 The Boundaries of Christian Participation in War

The boundaries of the permissible participation of the Church and of Christians in military conflicts must be clearly defined, indicating where the line runs between tragic concession and spiritual distortion, where defense passes over into aggression, and where tragedy becomes a justification for violence and evil. Without this, any Christian participation in war remains unreflective and open to manipulation and competing interpretations.

2.5 An Interconfessional Organ of Mediation

A permanent interconfessional organ for peacemaking and mediation, with international standing, must be established. Such a body must possess not only symbolic but also practical authority, acting as a mediator in conflicts, an initiator of negotiations, and a platform for dialogue. This could restore to the Church her historically proper role as a force capable not only of speaking about peace, but also of participating in its attainment.

2.6 A Common Language of Christian Witness

A common language must be developed through which Christianity can speak to the world. This language must be at once theologically precise and anthropologically universal, intelligible not only to believers but also to secular society. Without such a language, Christian witness risks remaining enclosed within its own boundaries.

2.7 A System of Support for Victims of War and Repression

A real system of support for victims of war and repression must be established. This means coordinating the efforts of all Christian organizations in humanitarian aid, medical support, psychological accompaniment, and the defense of rights. It should become not fragmented charity, but a unified network in which Christianity manifests itself as an effective force of mercy.

2.8 The Practice of Pan-Christian Repentance

A practice of pan-Christian repentance for participation in violence and its justification must be developed, since the present military actions are supported not only by the Orthodox part of the Church.

2.9 Rethinking the Church as Subject

An understanding of the Church as a subject, and not merely as an institution, must be restored. The Church must once again become a space in which a person is formed who is capable not only of believing, but also of acting. This requires a reconsideration of the role of the community, a return to the practice of small fraternities, and the development of forms of common life in which peacemaking becomes an experience rather than an abstract idea.

2.10.The Boundaries of Cooperation with the State

The boundaries of cooperation with states in times of conflict must be clearly defined. The council must state plainly that alliance with power cannot lead to the justification of violence, that loyalty cannot replace truth, and that political involvement must not destroy the evangelical foundation. The Church must preserve the right to peacemaking neutrality, together with the freedom and authority to bear witness to evil and to preach peace without the threat of state persecution.

2.11.A Global Network of Peacemaking Communities

A global network of Christian communities oriented toward peacemaking must be formed. These communities should be linked to one another, regularly exchange experience, and support one another.

2.12.Joint Steps Possible Already Now

Concrete steps must be taken without postponing them until “better times.” Common prayers, shared statements, coordinated aid, and educational projects—all this can and must begin already now. The council will only confirm, deepen, and strengthen these processes.

2.13.The “Voices of Peace” Register

An international Christian register, “Voices of Peace,” must be established—an open database of repressed and persecuted Christians of all confessions, intended to serve their legal, material, and prayerful support on the global level.

2.14.A Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Sacralizing Aggression

A joint declaration must be adopted on the inadmissibility of using church symbolism and liturgical texts to justify aggression, together with a commitment to revise the relevant liturgical rites in all traditions, including the blessing of weapons.

3. Practical Forms of Implementation

   
   

What is at stake here is not merely a meeting of representatives of different confessions, but an attempt to restore Christianity’s voice in the world. If such an All-Christian Council were to become possible, it could inaugurate a sustained and coordinated action in which the various Christian confessions would learn to act as one body without losing their confessional identity. Possible fruits of such work might include the following initiatives.

3.1 “Presence of Peace”

The creation of an international interconfessional mission, “Presence of Peace,” which could unite ministry on different levels—from diplomacy and negotiations to living human presence in places of pain, suffering, and tension. Christians, guided by the apostolic principle that “each one should remain in the calling in which he was called,” and endowed with different gifts and talents, could form small interconfessional groups, each acting on its own front: some at high diplomatic tables, others alongside the suffering, without dividing people according to the side of the conflict to which they belong. Such a mission could become one of the first embodiments of a conciliar decision in which the word of peace takes flesh and becomes presence.

3.2 “Christian Humanitarian Alliance”

At the same time, coordination in humanitarian ministry must be built in the form of a “Christian Humanitarian Alliance.” Today, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox aid structures often act in parallel, at times duplicating one another and at times remaining unnoticed. Yet the uniting of efforts without loss of independence could create a qualitatively new level of Christian presence in the world. Such an alliance would make it possible to coordinate resources, distribute areas of responsibility, ensure a rapid response to crises, and form a united witness of mercy.

3.3 “School of Peace”

The creation of an interconfessional programme, “School of Peace,” intended to unite and carefully integrate theology, ethics, and the practical experience of peacemaking accumulated across the whole history of the Christian Church. What is at issue here is not the blind borrowing of forms, but the inward translation of this experience into the language of each tradition and its incorporation into that tradition’s ascetical, liturgical, and theological fabric.

3.4 A Shared Media Space

No less urgent, in an age of continuous information flow, is the formation of a shared media space that could take shape as a distinct initiative. The coordination of existing resources and the harmonization of narratives, meanings, and messages could create an effect of consonant witness, in which differences do not disappear, but become proportionate and recognizable. This is especially important in a situation where the word is devalued by multiplicity and competition.

3.5 “Abodes of Peace”

The creation of a network of “Abodes of Peace” (a provisional title), which would function as concrete spaces where people belonging to different sides of a conflict could, through the mediation of Christian missionaries, meet, speak, listen, and gradually recover the ability to see a human being in the enemy. Such houses may exist in different forms—as communities, centres, or parishes. Their fundamental task is to create the conditions for dialogue where the very possibility of dialogue has been destroyed. This, of course, requires deliberate formation and training.

3.6 “Field Reconciliation Teams”

In addition, mobile “Field Reconciliation Teams” could be created—small interconfessional groups capable of traveling quickly to zones of tension and crisis. Their task would be rapid response, work with conflict at an early stage, and the restoration of communication between people. They would be a kind of spiritual and social “ambulance,” active precisely where delay may lead to an escalation of violence. Such forms of ministry are already known in part from certain Protestant initiatives and demonstrate the viability of this model.

3.7 “Defenders of Conscience”

The creation of a programme, “Defenders of Conscience,” which could include not only financial and legal assistance, but also the provision of refuge, psychological support, help with employment, and the possibility of continuing ministry for priests and laypeople subjected to persecution.

3.8 “Common Day of Peace”

An important element could be the establishment of a common rhythm through a global initiative, “Common Day of Peace.” On 21 September, the International Day of Peace is observed at the initiative of the United Nations; yet one day a year is clearly insufficient for peace to become a stable practice of ecclesial life. The Church could set an annual rhythm by establishing monthly actions, molebens, and other forms of common action in which Christians of different confessions throughout the world simultaneously offer prayer, public witness, and concrete works of mercy. Such an initiative would cultivate an experience of shared belonging and a sense of common time, in which the Church lives and acts as a whole.

4. Conclusion

   
   

This programme does not claim exhaustive completeness, but seeks to indicate a possible direction of movement: from scattered initiatives to coordinated Christian action, from isolated gestures of goodwill to a conciliar form of peacemaking, from reacting to evil to building a space of peace. No such document can in itself establish peace, but it may become a step toward restoring to Christian witness a common form, intelligibility, and effective force.

The Peace to All project / Friede Allen e.V.