The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I (2003) proclaimed that only "in a few specific cases the Orthodox Church forgives an armed defense against oppression and violence" (emphasis added; 262). Bartholomew I instead set forth the axioms that it is better "to be treated with injustice ourselves than to do injustice to others" (263), for "war and violence are never means used by God in order to achieve a [just] result" (emphasis added; 262). An initial reading of these statements reveals an uncompromising condemnation warfare, even in self-defense. Yet an armed defense is still theologically forgivable - a seeming contradiction. The Orthodox position on war could therefore be interpreted as setting forth a curious duplicity. Naturally, such a conclusion would be inaccurate.

The coherence of the modern Orthodox position on war can be revealed through an examination of its development from historic Church doctrine. The following analysis specifically considers two key figures in Orthodoxy: Constantine-Cyril (827-869 CE) and John Chrysostom (347-407 CE). It is with Constantine-Cyril that the most explicit Orthodox statement on justifiable war can be found, and with Chrysostom the role of the Church and the secular State is established. As will be argued, the statements on war articulated by Bartholomew I become fully appreciable when the doctrinal legacy of these two early Church figures is considered. This historical perspective, however, does bring to the fore certain modern criticisms of the Orthodox position, and further challenges the central question of whether the New Testament scriptures are truly applicable in real-world ethical applications.

Constantine-Cyril and Just War

The history of the Byzantine Empire is characterized by nearly constant warfare with Islamic invaders (among others). Whether it was better to continually pay tribute to the Caliph for the sake of a truce or whether it was justifiable to sanction an armed defense became a pressing theological question. The most notable example in Orthodoxy for advocacy of the latter position is found with Constantine-Cyril (known as the 'Apostle to the Slavs'). A purported speech of this historical figure is presented as a preeminent example of "just war" doctrine by the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (2000) in their statement of faith, The Orthodox Church and Society: The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. This document describes an ambassadorial mission of Constantine-Cyril on behalf of the Emperor to meet with Caliph Mutawakkil in 851. While certain elements of this mission documented in Vita Constantini are undoubtedly apocryphal,^[2] Dvornik (1970) notes that the Caliph was known to be acutely interested in religious questions, and that the negotiations undoubtedly would have degenerated into a theological dispute (286-7). A particularly noteworthy aspect of the ensuing debate was that both sides used the other's scriptures in their polemics.^[3] For example, on the key issue of just war, the Islamic scholars cleverly manipulated the verses from Matthew 5:38-44 to charge:

"Your God is Christ. He commanded you to pray for your enemies, to do good to those who hate and persecute you, and to offer the other cheek to those who hit you. But what do you actually do? If anyone offends you, you sharpen your sword and go into battle and kill. Why do you not obey your Christ?" The Slavonic Life of St. Constantine-Cyril (The Orthodox Church and Society VIII.2)

Constantine-Cyril is said to have responded: "If there are two commandments written in one law, who will be its best respecter - the one who obeys only one commandment or the one who obeys both?" The Islamic scholars answered that the one who obeyed both is the better observer of the law, whereupon Constantine-Cyril pronounced:

"Christ is our God Who ordered us to pray for our offenders and to do good to them. He also said that no one of us can show greater love in life than he who gives his life for his friends [cf. John 15:13]. That is why we generously endure offences caused us as private people. But in company we defend one another and give our lives in battle for our neighbors, so that you, having taken our companions as prisoners, could not imprison their souls together with their bodies by forcing them into renouncing their faith and into godless deeds. Our Christ-loving soldiers protect our Holy Church with arms in their hands. They safeguard the sovereign in whose sacred person they respect the image of the rule of the Heavenly King. They safeguard their land because with its fall their homeland's authority will inevitably fall too, and the Gospel Faith will be shaken. These are precious pledges for which soldiers should fight to the last. And if they give their lives in battlefield, the Church will include them in the community of the holy martyrs and call them intercessors before God." The Slavonic Life of St. Constantine-Cyril (The Orthodox Church and Society VIII.2)

This proclamation of Constantine-Cyril contains several remarkable statements that, for the sake of discussion, will be delineated as follows: (1) a clear line of demarcation is drawn between the interactions between individual persons and collective social groups; (2) Constantine-Cyril understands Jesus' commandments within a hierarchal matrix, with the proclamation on the greatest possible love (John 15:13) at the pinnacle (possibly signifying the culmination and synthesis of the other commandments); and (3), safeguarding one's neighbors as well as the "sacred person" of the Emperor is a duty for Christian soldiers that frees them from the other scriptural mandates requiring non-violence (e.g., Matthew 5:38-44). The resulting formulation provides a surprisingly strong and unambiguous theological affirmation of the wars being fought to repel the armies of the Caliph.

With respect to the theological logic of the formulation, there is an immediately noticeable problem with trying to isolate those verses which only pertain to private individuals in society, and those which take on particular significance in relation to actions of the State. There is another apparent problem with the logic of hierarchically ordering the scriptural commandments, for the idea of a preemptive hierarchical structure would seem to be flatly false. James, for example, proclaims that to show partiality in the commandments is sin, "for whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all" (2:8-10; NKJ version). Yet Constantine-Cyril isolated John 15:13, identifying this verse (above all others) as the pinnacle in a hierarchy that preempts the command to love your enemies. Strictly interpreted, Constantine-Cyril seemed to be implying that violent defense of one's neighbors and Emperor is in fact the penultimate Christian act of love - so much so that slain soldiers qualify as martyrs.

This last claim stands in stark contrast to the traditional example of the Church martyrs who both willingly accepted death and never sought to defend their fellow Christians against persecution through violence. The martyrdom of Polycarp (69-155 CE), for example, presents a much different vision of these same divine commands to manifest the greatest love in defense of others. In the Epistle of the Smyrnaeans (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:78-89) which describes the martyrdom of Polycarp, the narrator proclaims that "for he endured to be betrayed, even as did the Lord, that we might become imitators of him, not as considering the things that concern ourselves only, but also the things that concern our neighbours; for it belongeth [sic] to true and firm love not only to desire to be saved itself, but also that all the brethren should be saved [through his example]" (Hoole translation; 1:2), and thus Polycarp "made the persecution to cease" (1:1). For the early Church, the martyrdom of Polycarp was the archetype for embodying the message of Christ. The exegesis of Constantine-Cyril, at the very least, would appear to be at considerable tension with this pre-Christendom precedent set forth by Polycarp.

Father Stanley Harakas (1981) argues that the formulation of any theological position on war, even pacifism, requires the subversion of certain portions of the scripture, that each can only contain a portion of the true values within the New Testament (78; his emphases). Harakas (1993) further argues that scripture has historically been interpreted in the light of the practical context of the times. For the pre-Christendom Church, the foremost concern was apostasy, and this is what inspired the theology of pacifism unto martyrdom (85, 89). Alternately, Byzantium faced an all-together different crisis; the faith this time had to be defended through military action, and thus Harakas claims the theology mirrored this necessity (89). Notwithstanding, Harakas (1986) quite correctly contends that a justification for war does not constitute a moral good in-of-itself; which is to say, a justification for war cannot be equated with a "just war" (259). In this sense, there is no just war (jus ad bellum) doctrine in Orthodoxy. Yet still there is a strong jus in bello tradition in the form of the Strategikon (circa late 6th or early 7th century CE), a military treatise which directs campaigns to be fought to minimize the loss of life on both sides - even allowing an encircled enemy to escape rather than engaging in a last stand costly to both sides (261). Harakas (1981) also highlights the fact that the history of the Byzantine Empire is comparatively devoid of the concept of Crusade (defined as a war of aggression seeking to achieve ideological and/or religious ends in foreign lands), with the only possible exception of Emperor Heraclius' war against the Persians in 622-630 CE.^[4]

Despite the seeming logic of his arguments, the central position articulated by Father Harakas - that the message of the scriptures has been manipulated to support context-dependent theologies - is incorrect, yet not entirely untrue (as will be discussed in a moment). However, his assessment does offer a possible explanation for the position on war articulated by Bartholomew I. Per Harakas' logic, it could be argued that the Patriarch has reevaluated historical theology in light of the sitz im Leben to create a post-Christendom doctrine of critical engagement with the State (a position to which this paper argues but from a different theological premise). As such, the Patriarchs' statement on war could be interpreted as an ideal to be strived for with all earnestness, together with a concession to real-world realities that sometimes necessitate the setting aside of this ideal - hence war is sometimes forgivable. This interpretation would be in error. But before an alternate conclusion is submitted, certain other foundational doctrinal tenants must first be established.

Chrysostom, the State, and the Christian Soldier

John Chrysostom, together with his contemporaries Basil the Great (329-379 CE) and Gregory the Theologian (329-390 CE), comprise the three Hierarchs (Fathers) of the Orthodox Church. An initial reading would seem to suggest the exegesis of Constantine-Cyril on justifiable war is in keeping with the teachings of the Hierarchs, for Chrysostom declared, "never be afraid of the sword if thy conscience does not accuse thee: never be afraid in war if thy conscience is clear" (Second Homily on Eutropius 4). Yet Chrysostom's position on justifiable warfare is far more complex than suggested by that singular statement.

It is noteworthy that the context of this famous proclamation was a sermon delivered to the people of Constantinople following the threatened storming of the Church by soldiers. Chrysostom had given sanctuary to the despised former Grand Chamberlain to the Emperor, Eutropius (see editor's comments, Nicene Fathers 9:398-402). Chrysostom points out in this sermon that he "suffered countless troubles at his [Eutropius'] hands, yet I did not retaliate. For I copy the example of my Master, who said on the cross, 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'" (Second Homily on Eutropius 5).^[5] This would seem to be a contradiction of his earlier proclamation to his congregation about not fearing to take-up the sword in times of war. Yet later in his address, he proclaims that while many are not able to manifest the example of Christ, heaven may not be denied to them (15). He likewise remarks that while chastity is preferable, marriage is also acceptable. Likewise, poverty is the example, but the rich through charity can also inherit the Kingdom. The same is true for all stations in life, provided that their conscience is clear from the stain of sin, for "there are many ways of living, but only one paradise … there is the body, the eye, the finger. But all these make up but one man" (15).^[6] Clearly, there are two standards being set here: one for the Church after the example of Christ, and a more forgiving one for the laity.

Further clarity is found on this soteriological distinction between the actions of the clergy and the laity is found in Chrysostom's treatise On the Priesthood. A revealing comment is set forth in his discussion with his friend, Basil the Great. He vividly describes the horrors of warfare and the ominous responsibility of the campaign commander (2.12), and then describes the "more formidable conflict" and even more terrifying responsibility to the congregation faced daily by the priest against the attacks of Satan (2.13). It is apparent that this was not hyperbole for Chrysostom, but a clear elevation of the priest's position in society, above even the power and authority of the State. Support for this conclusion is found when, in discussing the powers of the State to imprison those who commit crimes, Chrysostom declared, "for neither has authority of this kind for the restraint of sinners been given us by law, nor, if it had been given, should we have any field for the exercise of our power, inasmuch as God rewards those who abstain from evil by their own choice, not of necessity" (emphasis added; 2.3). This is a clear line of demarcation between the Church and State. Free will is a foundational necessity for the salvation of the congregation. Those who perform crimes must be handled by another authority:

Christians above all men are not permitted forcibly to correct the failings of those who sin. Secular judges indeed, when they have captured malefactors under the law, show their authority to be great, and prevent them even against their will from following their own devices: but in our case the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion.
On the Priesthood 2.3

We have 'not lordship over your faith' (2 Corinthians 1:24), beloved, nor command we these things as your lords and masters. We are appointed for the teaching of the word, not for power, nor for absolute authority. We hold the place of counselors to advise you. The counselor speaks his own sentiments, not forcing the hearer, but leaving him full master of his choice upon what is said.
Homilies on Ephesians 11:15,16 (emphasis added)

Were you to deprive the world of magistrates, and of the fear that comes of them, houses at once, and cities, and nations, would fall on one another in unrestrained confusion, there being no one to repress, or repel, or persuade them to be peaceful, by the fear of punishment!
Homilies on the Statutes to the People of Antioch 6:2

It is evident that Chrysostom saw that the divine commandments had been alternately allocated to the Church and State, that though "[God] Himself hath armed magistrates with power" (Homilies on the Statutes to the People of Antioch 6:1), the Church had to forgo this same authority discussed in Romans 13:1-7. The foremost concern for the Church was matters of salvation, while the State existed for the common good of law and order. But it would be a mistake to conclude this was isolationism, for Chrysostom also saw the role of the Church as being called to correct the imperfections of the secular authorities through critical engagement; the Church was therefore not to be acquiescent, but an uncompromising judge of society. John even went as far as to issue thinly veiled warnings to the Emperor from the pulpit:

For of governments there are some natural, and others which are elective; -natural as of the lion over the quadrupeds, or as that of the eagle over the birds; elective, as that of an Emperor over us; for he doth not reign over his fellow-servants by any natural authority. Therefore it is that he oftentimes loses his sovereignty.
Homilies on the Statutes to the People of Antioch 7:3

The brazen and fearless criticism also extended to personal attacks. Notably, he even publicly criticized the Empress Eudoxia, comparing her at one point to the biblical figure of Jezebel for having seized private property in the name of the State (Liebeschuetz 199). While this (very) public conflict between the Empress and Chrysostom has often been cited as cause of his downfall, Pagels concludes it was his challenges to the social conscience of the elite on behalf of the poor, and specifically his insistence on building a lepertorium outside Constantinople which lead to his disposition and death (121). What is pertinent here to this discussion is that Chrysostom saw in this new post-Constantinian role for the Church as a new opportunity for the priesthood to embrace martyrdom for the sake of the public good.

This, it could be claimed, was in full keeping with the example set forth by Polycarp, for he declared:

If the empress wishes to banish me, let her do so; 'the earth is the Lord's.' If she wants to have me sawn asunder, I have Isaiah for an example. If she wants me to be drowned in the ocean, I think of Jonah. If I am to be thrown into the fire, the three men in the furnace suffered the same. If cast before wild beasts, I remember Daniel in the lion's den. If she wants me to be stoned, I have before me Stephen, the first martyr. If she demands my head, let her do so; John the Baptist shines before me. Naked I came from my mother's womb, naked I shall leave this world. Paul reminds me, 'If I still pleased men, I would not be the servant of Christ.'
The Life and Work of St. John Chrysostom (Prolegomena)
Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers 9:27

The Empress in her revenge exiled Chrysostom, and on a forced death march he succumbed to his martyrdom in 407 CE (for additional discussion see Prolegomena 10). Yet during his exile he wrote, A Treatise to Prove that No One can Harm the Man that does not Injure Himself. In this masterwork of rhetoric and theology, Chrysostom proclaimed to his distant congregation the principle that spiritual realities always take precedent over worldly sensibilities, even those of life and death. But against this seemingly impossible ideal, Chrysostom offered the example of the Ninevites, that though their inequities were great, they were still saved from worldly destruction, for "inasmuch as they were inwardly well-disposed, having laid hold of a slight opportunity they became better, barbarians and foreigners though they were, ignorant of all divine revelation," they still obtained God's mercy (14). This characteristic combining of inflexible scriptural truths with concessions for those who were not fully capable of committing themselves to Christ's example is a hallmark of Orthodoxy - and the foundational tenant that must be taken into account to understand the modern Orthodox Church's position on justifiable warfare.

Analysis and Synthesis

The doctrines of Chrysostom would seem to contradict at least part of Harakas' claim that biblical interpretation requires the theologian to subvert certain verses in order to manifest other values. It is true that message of pacifism (as exemplified by Polycarp) changed with the advent of Christendom to allow Christian soldiers to take up arms (as stated by both Constantine-Cyril and Chrysostom). And it is also true that the non-violent response to aggression required by Matthew 5:38-44 does not always reconcile with other scriptures, particularly the admonition of James 2:15-16 which requires those of faith to show their works through alleviating the physical suffering of others. In the context of warfare, the underlying theological question is whether this real-world reality constitutes one of those circumstances where it cannot be enough to be concerned only for a person's spiritual well-being - that is to say, is war justifiable in the face of the pressing need for the physical protection of others? Historically theologians have set forth three disparate responses to reconcile this scriptural impasse: pacifism, just war theory, and (in the West) crusade - each claiming a portion of the Christian values, but none embodying the full message of the scriptures. The disparity between these positions would seem to support Harakas' arguments on both the necessity of selective exegesis and the sitz em Liben of interpretation. Yet inherent in that characterization is the (unspoken) implication that the New Testament, taken as a whole, is ethically inapplicable in real-world scenarios - or stated more bluntly, that the lofty ideals professed therein are not really relevant to lives of those would call themselves Christian. Theologically speaking, this is unacceptable. Moreover, the doctrines of Chrysostom demonstrate that is indeed possible to formulate a theological solution to reconcile the seemingly conflicting verses without having to subvert any portion of the text.

The pre-Constantinian age of martyrs had no means to intervene to correct social injustice, excepting for an armed rebellion against the empire - an option the scriptures precluded (Romans 13:1-7). Martyrdom in fact was the only means of non-violent protest to achieve social change, a strategy that reportedly worked for Polycarp.^[7] Yet despite the emergence of justifiable warfare doctrine in Christendom, the theology of martyrdom was not abandoned. Chrysostom willingly followed the example of Polycarp on behalf of the poor and sick; his doctrines testify to the steadfastness of Matthew 5:38-44. Likewise, the other scriptural requirements, such as those that require punishment for breaking certain commandments of the Decalogue, as well as defending others in the face of a violent attack (as can be inferred from James 2:15-16), were actualized through the secular authority. It is noteworthy that this same scriptural formulation is still professed by the Orthodox Church: "The goal of the Church is the eternal salvation of people, while the goal of the state is their well-being on earth" (The Orthodox Church and Society III.3).

Chrysostom recognized a theological differentiation between the Church and the State, and an opportunity to manifest all the scriptural commandants - if not individually then collectively in society. We can infer from his conspicuous use of the analogy to the body of Christ (Second Homily on Eutropius 15; Romans 12:4-5) that he envisioned Christendom as a corporate manifestation, with each section of society (i.e., the Church and the secular State) playing a particular role provided for in the scriptures. These were the "two swords" (Luke 22:38) of Orthodoxy. In the spiritual warfare against the invisible enemies of Satan (Ephesians 6:12), the Church was alone at the frontlines - a conflict that had the salvation of all of humanity at stake (cf. On the Priesthood 2.13). To the secular authorities was relegated the (lesser) responsibilities of law enforcement and civil defense. The affairs-of-state were forbidden to priesthood for Chrysostom proclaimed that free will was the essential prerequisite for the acquisition of virtue needed for salvation; the laity had to be free to voluntarily choose obedience to the Church, while social order was assured through mandatory compliance to the State as provided for in Romans 13:1-7.

Between these two swords however existed the laity. By definition, the laity did not choose the strict requirements of the priesthood, yet still desired to be Christian in their secular lives. In one respect, the priesthood took upon themselves the uncompromising requirements of scriptural commands - in effect, taking up their crosses for them (Matthew 16:24). Yet at the same time the New Testament does not set forth two tiers of standards differentiating the priesthood from the laity, rather the opposite is true (cf. James 2:8-10). The doctrines of Chrysostom would therefore seem to create a soteriological problem, but this would also be a false characterization. As previously discussed, the sermons of Chrysostom powerfully set forth the literal message of the scriptures in his sermons, allowing for no compromising or mitigating the requirements therein. Yet he would also offer a message of God's mercy for even those who could not live up to those stringent standards, such as was shown to the people of Nineveh. The inherent mercy within Orthodox soteriology made it possible for the laity to live in the secular world and remain Christian. While a detailed examination of soteriology would not be pertinent here, this concession should not be mistaken for a 'double standard' with respect to individuals. There are, as previously argued, differing standards for the Church and State in Orthodoxy, and the fact the priesthood voluntarily held themselves to a higher (more restrictive) criteria than was expected of the laity - ostensively, to command moral authority over the congregation, as well as for maintaining the discipline needed for their internal struggles against principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12). Yet there is only one standard set forth by the scriptures to be strived for with all earnestness by all individuals, but one which has been coupled with a concession acknowledging God's mercy through sincere repentance.^[8]

Finally, a significant point of tension would seem to exist between the proclamations of Constantine-Cyril and Bartholomew I. One when hand we have a claim that the violent defense of one's fellows could earn a soldier the soteriological status of a martyr, and on the other the Church now declares that war is never the means used by God to achieve a just outcome. In this, the key mitigating factor to consider is that Constantine-Cyril articulated this surprising aggressive theological stance on war during an ambassadorial mission in which he represented the Emperor. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that he, being equally as cunning as his Islamic counterparts, was trying to dissuade the enemy from further warfare (and to embrace a peaceful negotiated outcome) by justifying the theology of war in the strongest terms possible. It is safe to presume that he may have somewhat overstated the case, and likewise failed to mention the inherent difficulties in formulating theological answers for Christians caught between commandments - and thus, in his own way, becoming as wise as the serpent and as harmless as a dove in the midst of wolves (cf. Matthew 10:16). Therefore, because of this ambassadorial role, his speech should be seen as limited to just the context of the Christian soldier engaged in rightful action on behalf of Christendom, not an all-encompassing theological truth in-of-itself. Constantine-Cyril was only referring to soteriological status of the Byzantine soldier.^[9] Taken in this light, there is no conflict between the proclamation of Constantine-Cyril and that of Bartholomew I who spoke on warfare in a post-Christendom world.

Conclusions

Father Harakas is correct in that it may no longer be possible for any single person to obey all the scriptural requirements of the New Testament. Historically the Orthodox Church resolved this problem by envisioning the scriptural commands as being applicable collectively within society, a formulation that reached its highest expression within the context of Christendom. Notwithstanding, while this analysis has revealed the theological coherence of the pre-Constantine and Christendom positions on warfare, this same logic also points to a critical problem in the post-Christendom world.

The lay Christian continues to be face with issues of warfare - should they now fear the sword because the age of Constantine-Cyril has passed? Does the example of Polycarp now take precedence, to suffer with injustice rather than perform injustice ourselves, even though Christians are no longer victimized by a hegemonic State? The only guidance would seem to be the curious caveat mentioned by Chrysostom: "if thy conscience does not accuse thee." But rather than leaving the laity with ambiguity, this statement may take on particular significance in the modern context. Conscience, in one sense, is a reference to inner war against principalities and powers traditionally fought by priests. The lay Christian cannot rely upon the two swords of the caesaro-papist system to fully protect them from either the inner spiritual war or an outer one threatening their neighbors. The laity is therefore presented a clear choice on which 'master' they choose to follow (Matthew 6:24). Moreover, any claimed justification for choices of conscience exercised against the rightful decrees of the Patriarch become increasingly questionable as those decisions move the person away from the soteriological protection afforded by the Church. Expressed in theological language, only the Church can serve as their advocate before God, and only the Church can reconcile a person's conscience with God. The most conscionable choice, therefore, would be to heed the words of Bartholomew I, and willingly suffer injustice rather than perpetuate suffering with more violence.

Yet at the same time the Christian is now faced with a new responsibility. In the post-Christendom age, it now falls to both the laity and the Church to critically engage the State for the cause of social justice, and especially for the prevention of war. Unlike in previous eras, the individual in representative democracies have considerable economic and political influence in society - with power always comes responsibility. Consequently, it could be claimed that individuals are now collectively responsible for social injustices within society, and for the wars fought by that nation. The laity must therefore actively strive through political and economic means to achieve the just ends proclaimed by their Patriarch. In this lesser but genuinely remarkable way, the laity can follow the examples of Constantine-Cyril and Chrysostom in their daily lives.

References

Ante-Nicene Fathers. [1885] 1993. Volume 1. "Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna Concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp." Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (editor). A. Cleveland Coxe (contributing editor). Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Bartholomew I. 2003. "War and Suffering." Cosmic Grace - Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew I. Ed. John Chryssavgis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Dvornik, Francis. 1970. Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: Saints Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Harakas, Stanley S. 1981. "The Morality of War." Orthodox Synthesis: The Unity of Theological Thought. Ed. Joseph Allen. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

---. 1986. "The N.C.C.B. Pastoral Letter, The Challenge of Peace: An Eastern Orthodox Response." Peace in a Nuclear Age: The Bishops' Pastoral Letter in Perspective. Ed. Charles J. Reid, Jr. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

---. 1993. "Peace in a Nuclear Context." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Volume 23, Nos. 1-4: 81-90.

Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2000. The Orthodox Church and Society: The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. Belleville, Michigan: St. Innocent / Firebird Publishers.

Lacko, Michael. 1963. Saints Cyril and Methodius. Rome: Pont. Gregorian University.

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. 1990. Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom. New York: Oxford University Press.

The Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers. [1889] 1996. First Series, Volume IX. "Chrysostom: On The Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies On The Statues." Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (editor). A. Cleveland Coxe (contributing editor). Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

---. [1889] 1996. First Series, Volume XIII. "Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon." Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (editor). A. Cleveland Coxe (contributing editor). Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ostrogorsky, George. 1969. History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Pagels, Elaine. 1988. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York: Random House.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1974. Volume 2. The Christian Tradition - A History of the Development of Doctrine: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Swete, Henry Barclay. 1912. The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church. London: Macmillan and Co.

Notes:

[1] David K. Goodin is a Religious Studies PhD candidate and a Faculty Lecturer at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

[2] Dvornik (1970) concludes that while the anonymous biographer presents the 24-year-old Constantine-Cyril as the senior envoy, the mission in fact was probably headed by George (287). Lacko (1963) concludes that the biographer in question was probably Clement of Ochride, who may have received a first-hand account through Methodius who accompanied Constantine-Cyril on the mission (9).

[3] Constantine-Cyril, for his part, cited the Koran to defend the Christian faith against the charge of shirk by the Islamic scholars (Dvornik 287; for further discussion on Muslim / Christian apologetics see Pelikan 1974, 232).

[4] Ostrogorsky (1969) concluded that Heraclius sought to restore the crippled Byzantine Empire which had lost its "vital central provinces" to foreign invaders (92). In the ensuing campaigns, the army of Hareclius advanced deep into Persian territory and captured the capital city of Ganzak. The troops then destroyed the fire-temple of Zoroaster in revenge for the enemy's sacking of Jerusalem (102). However, after the Persian king Chosroes II was killed (by his own son in a coup d'état), a negotiated settlement was reached in which all the captured Byzantium provinces were returned, and Heraclius and his army returned to Constantinople (103). No attempt was made to capture enemy lands for religious conversion. And so, as asserted by Harakas, whether this military campaign to recapture lost territories and force a truce could be considered a religious crusade is a subject open to debate.

[5] Chrysostom, as See of Constantinople, was a political enemy of Eutropius, and had been "the subject of his plots, yet I [still] became his protector" (Second Homily on Eutropius 5).

[6] Chrysostom was at the same time a blistering orator, lambasting the rich for having sliver chamber-pots when the needy suffered in the cold, and further insisting that all but the very poorest of his congregation purchase and read the bible, buying individual books if necessary (Liebeschuetz [1990] 176, 183-4). His ability to combine both criticism and conciliation earned John the adoration of the crowds, as well as the moniker "Chrysostom" (Golden Mouth).

[7] While the details of his martyrdom are undoubtedly apocryphal, or at the very least greatly exaggerated, Swete (1912) concluded this epistle provides invaluable insight on the theology of the sub-Apostolic Church, particularly since Polycarp is said to have been a disciple of the Apostle John (17-8).

[8] In this it is noteworthy that Chrysostom proclaimed, "for such is the loving-kindness of God; He never turns his face away from a sincere repentance, but if any one has pushed on to the very extremity of wickedness, and chooses to return thence towards the path of virtue, God accepts and welcomes, and does everything so as to restore him to his former position. And He does what is yet more merciful; for even should any one not manifest complete repentance, he does not pass by one which is small and insignificant, but assigns a great reward even to this" (An Exhortation to Theodore after his Fall 1.6).

[9] The priesthood was prohibited from engaging in warfare, a tradition that continues to this present day (Harakas 1981, 85). Harakas also recounts an event in Church history when Orthodox priests had taken up arms to join soldiers in battle (86). The priests were subsequently taken before a synod headed by Basil the Great, charged with murder and threaten with defrockment. Harakas makes special note that the actions of the soldiers were not called into question - only the fact that the priests engaged in battle was a concern. Nevertheless, while the synod eventually pronounced that the actions of priests were deplorable, no official sanction was imposed. They were instead forgiven.