"Betrayed Christianity" 6. Peace on Earth

1. Crisis in Kossovo: the weakness of Christian authority and the power of the Christianity of the betrayed Christ

There have been so many printed views on the crisis in Kossovo, both before and after the war, that even those who are exclusively concerned with the issue would find it difficult to follow them all. Apart from a few exceptions, most of them are concerned with finding out which side is completely right and is the victim and which side is completely wrong and is the perpetrator. In this last instance, the common sense of the analyst plays a vital part in his judgement. (According to Einstein, common sense is the deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before the age of eighteen.)
For the majority of people, the murderer was Milosevic and the victims were the Albanians of Kossovo. For some others, the cruel murderer was Clinton and his allies, and it was the people of Serbia who were suffering the murderous and cowardly attack.
The strange thing is that in the sharing out of responsibility and causes, the "Christianity of authority" seems divided. The representatives of the Christian West, leaders of America and Europe as well as the ecclesiastical establishment of those countries are, in general, in favour of the first view. On the contrary, the leaders of the Balkan countries and Eastern Europe, also by inference Christians (albeit only Orthodox) and the religious leadership of these areas, are mostly on the side of the suffering Serbians. (Shining exceptions such as Bishop Artemije of Kossovo and Archbishop Anastasios of Albania merely serve to prove the rule). As for the "people", insofar as they have any say in things at all, they follow the views and propaganda of their leaders (for whom they voted).
Contradictory and absurd though this may seem, it does have an explanation: As regards Clinton things are simple and obvious. Off he goes to church with prayer-book under his arm at the same time as the airplanes he commands are spreading death and the most inconceivable and senseless misery among a poor but proud people, whose only crime was that they voted, by a majority, for the wrong political leader. (Perhaps the American people, who committed the same mistake, deserve the same inexorable punishment?) At that time at the centre of his conscience there was no room for the love and humanity which Christ taught, not only through his words, but also through his painful and humiliating death on the Cross. Instead, a different presentation emerges from the mists of the pre-Christian Jewish memory: that of a vengeful and ruthless Jahweh, who sends his avenging angel to shoot off his smart bombs (guided not by laser but by the red blood of the lamb which the Israelites slaughtered and painted onto the lintels of their doors). The first-born son of Pharaoh and of every family of Egypt would be put to death, without sparing even the animals, in order to ensure the return of his beloved people, Israel, to their ancestral home.
Today's scenario presents certain divergences from the prototype. The son of Milosevic, for example, enjoys immunity from smart weaponry and strolls about happy and untroubled outside his homeland. On the other hand, to avoid the charge of partiality, Clinton has not restricted his targeting to the first-born children of the Serbs but has extended it in a scrupulously fair fashion to all the members of every Serb family. He was also incredibly against partiality regarding all other types of life and the natural environment. Bombs rained on the just and on the unjust. Of course, the unjust here had to be the conscripts in the Serbian army, who can not have had human personalities nor did any of them have a mother who had given birth to them or who mourned them, and they justly had to suffer just as if they had rushed willingly to join Milosevic's army for a handful of dollars.
Another deviation from the original is that, although in the Bible story no mention is made of misses or mistakes (that's prehistoric technological perfection!) on the part of the avenging angel, there have, however, been a good number in today's operations. These range from "collateral damage" (unavoidable) to unintentional errors (Sorry!) without any consequences and of negligible importance ("a thousand beatings are nothing on someone else's back"6.1). We could not possibly put our three heroic American prisoners on the same level as the thousands of barefoot dead Serbs and Kossovan Albanians.
By and large, the scenario has worked extremely well, with no room for the slightest regret in the immaculate and tearfully repentant conscience of our planet leader. In the end America's leaders both then and now, were only doing their job, along with Europe's dwarfed leaders. And even for reasons of personal gain, America's leader should not have turned his back on precious Peace to embrace hideous War.
But what persuasive discourse is being voiced by the other, the Orthodox side, with its totally opposing views? Does the "Christian" point of view, which is totally opposed to War, utter any persuasive speeches? The Church has the right to pour sarcasm on and refute the arguments of Western logic which shamelessly support the killing, not of Milosevic but of innocent people for …"humanitarian reasons"! But they don not have the right to keep bashful silence about cruelties to unarmed and defenseless people, even if there are mitigating circumstances of an "unfair attack." (How can you say what is right in this absurd war, when what is right for the one is wrong for the other).
Did they, then, sincerely wonder and search the depths of their conscience as to whether they had done their duty as Christians, whether they had exhausted every possibility of preventing or aborting this useless, ruthless and paranoiac war? Instead of a sincere self-criticism, what was their attitude, what are their suggestions? The calculating "mixture" of Church and State ended in a deadly embrace of "christianity' and nationalism, which resulted in the suffocation of the former and domination by the latter. Within this confusion, war is allowed when it is just, holy or defensive, so there is no moral reservation about staying by all means available, alongside our Orthodox foster-brethren, since we self-complacently discriminate against the least of Christ's brothers according to our "standards".
The objection that Christ opposed any use of violence ("put up thy sword into the sheath"6.2), a view that the Christian martyrs embraced and sealed with their blood (even though some of them would have had the doomed possibility of armed resistance or revolutionary action), is met with the following disarming arguments:
a) Views such as these smack too much of the Jehovah's Witnesses and are thus dismissed without discussion. It is not much of an argument to reject a position because it is expressed by others who really do have mistaken beliefs. It is also extremely "democratic" to refuse to examine it a priori for no other reason than that it was first expressed by them. Isn't it the same as the way we "gifted" and consigned the issue of Peace to the sole responsibility, concern and consideration of the materialistic intellectuality of the Left?
b) All of this is fine in theory, but not applicable in practice. Should we allow the enemy to come and kill our children and rape our women? A thousand times no. Even Christian tolerance and love has its limits. An indirect, though clear confession that Christianity cannot be implemented and is utopian. "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart"6.3 "that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you"6.4.
What an irony that it was not an enlightened Christian, but a Hindu, the great Gandhi, the shining personality who showed us that aims achieved by the conscious but painful insistence on the renunciation of all forms of violence is not some chimera for naοve daydreamers but a tangible, historical reality.
Christ came to give us an answer to the existential problems of mankind, not in conventional terms but by attacking them at their roots. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire"6.5. Unfortunately in a war they do not merely say: "You fool"!
And Christ did not abandon the interpretation of His teaching to the "mercy" of theologians. He confirmed this with his own example: while the Jews were expecting him to lead an uprising (which would have meant violence and death) against the cruel and oppressive Roman domination, He told them: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"6.6. How could they not feel themselves betrayed (since even His own disciples did not understand Him) by the Person they had been awaiting as their Messiah and liberator? In human terms were they not justified in condemning Him to death?
Today's Christianity of authority follows the logic of the Jews of that time. They proclaim "My kingdom is not of this world "6.7 but they do not suspect the real meaning which is hidden in this expression. Like it or not, they are deeply secular and remain rooted to the earth, unable, however they want to, to free themselves of the bonds of this world. And the more they wallow in murky notions, the more they will estrange themselves from the pure and crystalline truth: "No, to violence and war without any exception". Love which is God Himself can not be adulterated in any way by expedience and ulterior motives. Unshakably, unwaveringly, uncompromisingly: No. Whatever it costs. And, of course, it will cost a great deal, as it cost Christ and His martyrs. But Christ and His martyrs had no authority in this world to lose. Yet what would today's Authoritarian Christianity become without that authority? Nothing more than "sounding brass or a clanging cymbal". "Daedalos6.8 will fall down"!
Christianity must not deceive itself. Unless it renounces "half measures", the "yes, but" approach, expediency and ulterior motives, it has no hope of seeing the face of God. There is no chance of finding the prestige, trustworthiness and dignity of the Christianity of the betrayed Christ. It will be yet another ideological construct, yet another "alignment", with fanatical supporters, yet another "number" in the sea of ideologies and world theories. Let it make a decision and go forward. And if it follows the clear path, the one that is obvious and true, though painful and arduous, it will see things as they really are. The Love of God does not distinguish between the bombed little Serbian child and the disinherited little Albanian. For such Love, it matters not that the mothers keening over their dead children are Serbs or Albanians from Kossovo. "Love bears all things"6.9. It makes no distinctions on national, religious, political or generally in human terms.
An ordinary man understands, when the Church shows tolerance and understanding in certain situations which he wishes were ideal but in hard reality are not, and appreciates this attitude, conceived not in arrogance but in humility: an admission of imperfection. But war does not fit into this category. It is a conscious choice, with two "weights and measures", clearly influenced by nationalistic expediency, flattery of people's feelings, and collaboration with state authority. If the Church gave a steady orientation towards peace, it would help to avoid many ethnic disasters and human tragedies and calamities.
Everyone agrees with this in theory, but in practice, when the fire separates the gold from the rust, nobody can fool anyone. "God is not mocked"6.10. Let us leave it to God's judgement who is right and who is wrong. All that remains for us is the greatest, which is Love. Only love justifies mankind and gives us a reason to live.
Here you will probably say to me: since you are so clever, did not you go to the Army?6.11 Did you make the excuse you were ill and let others go and get killed to save your own skin? Well, that is not quite right. I received my call-up papers and served my full time in the army as a conscript. But I was told that when I passed the threshold of the camp I had to take into consideration that "where the army starts common sense ends". So when I walked into the camp, I left the Christianity of the betrayed Christ behind, along with common sense, and I said to myself: "Christ, I am doing something which is opposed to your love and against my will. If I was made of the stuff of those who remained faithful to your Love, my behaviour would have been different. But I am not, and I am aware that I can not be on your side and at the same time hold a weapon which might kill one day." I expected to get support from those who had taught me about Love up until then. They were nowhere to be seen. I met them forty days later when they came to my "oath ceremony" to bless my "sacred weapons". As a man, with obligations in this earthly life to myself and to my family, I felt I was doing my duty. As a Greek I was proud. As a Christian I was deeply ashamed, like a Communist who had betrayed the party by signing the renunciation of his ideology6.12. I could say this with ease because I was new to the Army and to the Christian faith. But when a few months later I was made an officer, because of my university degree, I forgot everything.Home

2. "Hope Wanted"

Can we still search for hope? Does it exist? It seems that it does, as according to the generally accepted view "hope is the last to die" and since people are still around, hope must be alive. Realising where the fact of putting our "trust in princes, or in the son of man, in whom there is no help" 6.13 has led us, let us look for hope in a totally different direction: "I walked along, looking at Your footsteps on the ground"6.14. Even those who called themselves Christ's faithful followers, did not follow these footsteps. In my opinion (and of course I am not claiming any privilege of infallibility), the Clergy's greatest mistake was that they did not make a clear statement, that war and any kind of violence has nothing to do with Jesus' love. This, of course, requires courage and strength and no expediency. The Church should take responsibility for the intolerable misery of its poor people, when supported war, or allowed war, or did nothing to stop it. This happened with the Crusades, holy wars, Byzantine wars, and contemporary wars of all kinds, whether aggressive or defensive.
I can just hear the angry shouts of the fanatics, like a tidal wave, saying that heresy causes madness. If they were able to think more clearly, maybe they could accept some simple things that life teaches us. It took thousands of years for people to realise and accept a common and historically confirmed truth. The worst peace is incomparably better than the best war. The saying "War, Father of all things"6.15, even as a disagreeable ascertainment, is a desperate effort to beautify (and exorcise) the most abhorrent of human activities.
Rivers of blood had to be spilt, the earth had to writhe in pain, despair and death, until man "came to himself"6.16 and understood that the main reason for his unhappiness and wretchedness was this own self. Unharnessed egotism, the "original sin" to which man was led by the selfish misuse of the freedom given to him, brought the rupture of the "loving relationship" and his continual thirst to attain it again. War is the cruelest expression of human egotism, and when this egotism is deliberately cultivated and imposed on the people, merciless and abominable fighting is the inevitable result. What attempts did the Church make to avert them? Against the teaching and example of its Founder, cowardly "having loved this present world"6.17 it could not avoid the deadly embrace of "the ruler of this world"6.17a and of all types of nationalistic expediency. So, the Church denied its substance, abandoning its mission to every kind of warmongering idealistic-realists and materialistic-pacifists (if you can possibly swallow such contradictions). In the exercise of love and the pursuit of peace I never found any exceptions ("saving for the cause"6.18) to this, but I would very much like to find them if there are any. Do not let anyone tell me that the demand for love and peace is idealistic and utopian. If this is not the spirit and the essence of Jesus' teaching then "either the coast is askew or "askewly" we are sailing"6.19. Let us not lose our minds altogether. The leaders of the ecclesiastic establishment are responsible not only for what they did but also for what they did not do, and if they had more humility and autognosis6.19a, they would have put "earth upon their heads"6.20 rather than gold and precious stones.
We must be objective however, and there are some signs of change that we can observe nowadays with thankfulness and delight. Recently, the indirect apology made by the Pope for errors committed by the Catholic Church and her "infallible" representatives against humanity and human dignity, especially in the case of the Holocaust6.20a, was received in various ways: by fanatics, who refuse to accept anything good about any change, according to the "womb" of their fanaticism: The Roman Catholics saw it as a betrayal, the Orthodox as a hypocrisy, the Jews as a half-measure. Only for the betrayed people all over the world was it a cause for sincere thankfulness. Finally, things that are obvious to common people, become partially apparent to some leaders after the passage of many years.
This happened a bit earlier when the "existing" materialistic "Weltanschauung" fell apart. When disappointment, bitterness and the strong and painful shock settled, then it became obvious that many cosmogonic6.20b changes can take place without a revolution and without a drop of blood being shed. When conditions are right, castles fall even without coincidences like Efialtes6.21, but because "the people lifted up their voice"6.22. Who would have thought that a whole empire which was founded on nuclear warheads on the one hand, and on gloomy violence on the other, (with millions of human victims and the greatest victim human freedom and dignity), would crumble without a fight? Nobody expects mistakes to be recognised by this "camp". Very few, true and pure fighters acknowledge their crimes; but most of their leaders are pretty relaxed about what was done. They blame - rightly so- other authoritarian regimes as loathsome, but regarding their own inhuman behaviour a bashful silence is preserved. They feel a little uncomfortable, because they are deprived of their favorable argument that all these accusations are exaggerated anti-communist propaganda, as there is no need to learn the cruel truth from historians, whom they would have contradicted for sure as they have a special gift for that.
Closing this parenthesis, let us come back to the responsibility of the Church which is also everyone's responsibility, for the upholding and keeping of peace. What can the Church really do, and what is more, what can an ordinary person do, to achieve this end? I think it is worthwhile to set down some thoughts here, despite the risk of being characterised as smarty, naοve or utopian. The potential an ordinary person has to intervene on these wide-ranging and important issues ranges between minimal and null. Nevertheless, God's grace adds unforeseeable dimensions to these things. It is presupposed that the Church is not only a place of worship. Worship is sine qua non6.22a , it is the base on which the whole structure of the Church is grounded, but its mission does not end there. The parish is a lively "cell", a group of people who really live the love of God in all its expressions. It is often forgotten that "he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"6.23 We are so clever that we can ignore the disciple's of Love urging. We are so capable that we can short-cut the current of Love from ourselves directly to God, by-passing the natural pathway which passes through the least of His brothers.
It could, of course, be argued against this that really the Church, apart from the love given to God, gives love to its neighbour in a practical way. The various types, purposes and functions of love really do exist even if they are not well-known ("thine alms may be in secret")6.24. In every parish, poor or rich, in some more than in others, people are given every type of service with honesty and simplicity. You have to remember the spontaneous attempts of ordinary people who in general and in the context of the parish, create warm and lively responses to every painful and unexpected stroke of misfortune, not only in their neighbourhood but also in every part of our planet. Only some of these activities are shown by the media, according to whether it suits their own ends or ideological interests.
What happens in between? Love is asleep, and apart from the normal liturgical and social needs of the parish (Baptisms, Weddings, Funerals) no other action upsets the routine. At these supposedly quiet moments, wars and their causes are being brewed up, unhappiness is spreading, hunger is eating the flesh of numerous people, the machinations of hatred are continuing. Are sensitive consciences alert? I never saw or heard of people in any parish meeting discuss or cudgel their brains to find ways of influencing world power, to prevent every type of unhappiness. Is there a possibility that they could influence people? I think even if it is tiny or very little, there is. There were times when people's displeasure and thirst for justice, were kept under control by violence and pressure. When steam is pressurised it can move railway trains. In those days there were worthy and powerful leaders (laypeople and clergymen) who had no difficulty listening to the sighs of their tormented people, and applying decisions for their relief. Later when ideas about democracy came back to the forefront and human rights were slowly strengthened, conditions for these interventions improved. Nowadays, nobody doubts about these possibilities. The problem is who will inspire, organise, lead and bring forward these collective attempts? The most natural voice of love who should inspire these visions is of course the Church. But sadly you do not have to be very bright to realise that the Church's role is self-limited eunuchistically6.25 to some lukewarm, weak, ostensible activities, unable to influence people. The emphasis is on worship, sermons and administration. There are some fund-raising activities by a ladies' committee (the "philoptoho"6.26 fund).
How can people of today spare time for the "other", since they are in a non-stop rush for "cares of this life"6.25a (indulgence, money, vanity); how can they find the will for giving (in the everyday routine of "accommodation") or enthusiasm for efforts to raise their own selves from the earthy mud? The situation is not difficult to understand: if the Church does not clarify certain things, if it does not declare itself strongly against every type of war, if it does not avert its face from every type of violence, if it does not honestly embrace the vulnerable peace, the Church will never get prestige and trustworthiness, nor the grace to allure the crowds and lead them in spiritual fights for peace, which bring love closer and isolate insatiable egoism.
If there could be such a miracle, the conditions are more than suitable, "the fields are already white for harvest"6.25b and the means are more abundant than anyone could have dreamed. The World Wide Web of the Internet is not only a huge market where anyone can advertise his wares, both material and spiritual; but it is also a gift of communication, which can unify in an enormous effort human Persons, transformed by the warmth of love, Persons whose existence goes unnoticed by those whose "ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed"6.27. These are people who accept "Jesus Christ, and him crucified"6.27a, even if some of them never managed to see Him or to hear Him but who have accepted His love. People who are not of Paul's group, or Apollo's, or Cephas'6.28, but who do belong to Jesus Christ. People who will soften and weaken the steel of authority by the warmth of their hearts, will reduce exploitation, make the pain easier, and reduce misery all over the world. What could these people do in the context of a parish or in the wider confines of the global village? There are possibilities that they could do a lot, they could search for and find areas of unrest and hatred, in their neighbourhood or further afield. To see who, according to human limits, has legitimacy on his side, to avoid the temptation of judging who is right, and to pursue peace in any way apart from violence, to try to minimise the existence of a fire, which we all know how easily is ignited, but which leaves behind such an abyss of pain when it finally goes out. Of course, when a fire breaks out, every man wakes up and gets excited and rushes to offer help, sometimes shouting and making a big fuss to get others excited too or just to denote his participation.
It would be petty and small-minded for anyone to doubt the great work of the Church and the State, and also of numerous non-governmental organisations. However, no one can deny that state and private funds are poorly administrated. This is made evident by the abundance of references to it in the local and international newspapers. Here the Church could take on a very essential role. There are, undoubtedly, people in the bosom of the Church who have denied themselves and dedicated their life to God, and who have severed every dependence on money and earthly dominion. Are there such people? Indubitably Yes! Though they are, unfortunately, fewer that those who only declare that. But where are these people, so precious and irreplaceable, to serve the imperative need to help the poor asking for nothing in return? Where are the people who will reduce to zero tricks and roguery, who will see that funds are not mishandled and do not go into the pockets of a few strong and ruthless people? They will help the unfortunate and avert the doubts of those who are, for serious reasons, hesitating to offer any help.
What is written above looks strange and odd and some people would think that it is "too good to be true". But times have changed recently in ways which no one would have dared to think of a few years ago. It was not necessary for someone to live at the time of the Holy Inquisition for them to be unable to express a reasonable and "harmless" point of view. Even a few years ago you had to be pretty daring to voice radical points of view - which nowadays even clergymen (a few at the moment) express publicly without fear.
Nevertheless, older people see the end of the human race. They feel the prevalence of evil and anticipate the coming of the Last Days. Some people, even in the first Christian period, hasty and impatient as usual, believed that the Second Coming would take place very soon. Maybe it is time to look at the possibility that if Christianity historically starts with Alpha and ends with Omega, then Today should be placed nearer to Alpha than to Omega. Christianity certainly has not said the last word. Betrayed People are gazing patiently and expectantly up at the Heavens. Hope is still burgeoning inside them. The betrayed Jesus will not betray them.

[6.1] Greek proverb
[6.2] Joh.18, 11
[6.3] Joh. 20, 40
[6.4] Mat. 21, 31
[6.5] Mat. 5, 21-22
[6.6] Mat. 22, 21
[6.7] Joh. 18, 36
[6.8] Daedalus = builder in Greek mythology of the
Cretan labyrinth and inventor of wings
by which he and his son Icarus escape from it.
[6.9] 1 Cor. 13, 7 "Charity Beareth all things".
[6.10] Gal. 6, 7
[6.11] Army service is compulsory in Greece
[6.12] A common practice, imposed by force, during
and after the Greek Civil War (1944-1949).
[6.13] Ps. 145 (146), 3
[6.14] Verse from a song by the contemporary Greek
composer S. Spanoudakis.
[6.15] ascribed to ancient Greek philosopher Heracleitus.
[6.16] Luc. 15, 17
[6.17] 2 Tim. 4, 10
[6.17a] Joh. 12,31
[6.18] Mat. 5, 32
[6.19] Greek proverb
[6.19a] auto= self, gnosis=knowledge
[6.20] Ne. 9, 1
[6.20a] Holocaust = the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men,
women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question". The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word 'olah', meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen because in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program - the extermination camps - the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria and open fires.
[6.20b] from kosmos (world) + gonos (offspring)
[6.21] In August 480 BC, during the second Persian
invasion of Greece, a small Greek
force under the Spartan king Leonidas defended Attica and Boeotia against the southward advance of Xerxes' Persian army. Leonidas' troops held the pass of Thermopylae for three days until the Persians, guided along another mountain pass by the Greek traitor Ephialtes, outflanked them.
[6.22] Jd. 2, 4
[6.22a] necessary (Lat.)
[6.23] Joh. 4, 20
[6.24] Mat. 6, 4
[6.25] eunuch = castrated man
[6.25a] Luc. 21, 34
[6.25b] Joh.4, 35
[6.26] philoptoho, from philos = friend, ptohos = poor
[6.27] Mat. 13, 15
[6.27a] 1 Cor. 2, 2
[6.28] 1 Cor. 1,12