War, Conscience, and Christian Formation

An Orthodox Patristic Framework for Young Adults in a Time of European Instability

Introduction

War has re-entered the European political imagination not merely as historical memory but as an increasingly articulated and anticipated future. Political discourse across the continent now routinely employs the language of inevitability, preparedness, deterrence, escalation, and sacrifice. Such categories extend beyond policy documents and military strategy into the formation of cultural expectation, moral psychology, and collective identity. The possibility of large-scale conflict no longer belongs solely to historical reflection but is increasingly framed as a horizon toward which societies must orient themselves.

For Orthodox Christians—particularly young adults within university environments—this context generates acute moral and spiritual pressure. Individuals are urged to adopt clear positions rapidly, to align theological commitments with civilisational narratives, and to translate Christian identity into political loyalty. The demand is not merely for opinion but for moral readiness: a readiness to justify violence, to frame conflict as necessary, and to interpret historical processes as morally clarifying events.

Eastern Orthodoxy does not approach such pressure by offering ideological alignment or ethical shortcuts. Rather, it begins with a prior and more demanding question: what kind of human person is being formed by the way war is imagined, justified, and prepared for? Orthodox moral reasoning is not primarily outcome-oriented but anthropological and ascetical, concerned with the gradual transformation of the human person toward communion with God. Ethical discernment, therefore, cannot be separated from spiritual formation.

This article argues that Orthodoxy neither endorses pacifism as an abstract moral ideology nor develops a doctrine of Just War comparable to those found in Western Christian ethics. Instead, it judges violence through ascetical anthropology, repentance, and the patristic paradigm of martyrdom, rendering war a tragic concession to fallenness rather than a morally justificatory act. Drawing upon Scripture, patristic theology, and contemporary Orthodox scholarship—particularly the work of Krastu Banev and the pastoral synthesis of Jim Forest—it proposes a framework for Christian discernment capable of resisting both moral absolutism and theological sanitisation in a time of renewed militarisation.

Peace as the Normative Horizon of Christian Existence

Orthodox moral reasoning concerning war begins not with the state, international law, or political necessity, but with worship. At every Divine Liturgy the Church petitions “for the peace from above and for the peace of the whole world.” This liturgical rhythm expresses not a sentimental aspiration but a theological claim about reality itself. Peace is understood not merely as social stability but as a mode of existence rooted in communion with God (Ware, 1997). It reflects the restoration of proper relationality between humanity, creation, and the Creator.

Within Orthodox anthropology, violence therefore signifies not simply diplomatic failure but rupture within the structure of human life. Human beings are created for communion; coercion and domination distort that vocation. Scripture consistently presents violence as a manifestation of fallen relationality rather than morally neutral instrumentality. The first act of lethal violence in Genesis is fratricide, born not of political necessity but of envy, wounded identity, and distorted desire (Gen. 4). From this moment onward, warfare appears as a recurrent symptom of disordered humanity.

The prophetic tradition intensifies this judgement by orienting Israel toward a telos in which violence becomes unimaginable. Isaiah’s vision of nations transforming weapons into tools of cultivation (Isa. 2:4) functions simultaneously as promise and critique. It reveals war as belonging to the age of sin rather than to God’s final intention for creation. This eschatological horizon is not deferred moral idealism but present judgement upon violent history.

The New Testament radicalises this perspective rather than moderating it. Christ’s refusal of armed defence in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:52) does not merely prohibit impulsive violence but reveals a Kingdom whose authority is not exercised through coercion. His declaration before Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) does not deny the reality of political power but decisively relativises it. The crucifixion itself exposes violence as the mechanism by which fallen humanity resists divine life.

Pauline ethics embed Christian existence within this cruciform anthropology. The exhortation to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:17–21) refuses the logic of retaliatory justice that structures much political reasoning. For Orthodoxy, such commands are not eschatological ideals postponed until history’s end but present norms that judge all historical action. Peace thus functions not as naïveté but as the theological measure by which violence is revealed as disorder.

The Gospel narratives not only prohibit violence but fundamentally redefine power itself. Christ’s refusal of armed defence in Gethsemane is frequently interpreted as situational restraint rather than theological revelation. Yet the narrative context suggests otherwise. Peter’s sword is not merely imprudent; it represents a misunderstanding of messianic vocation. Christ’s rebuke—those who take the sword shall perish by the sword—functions not as a pragmatic warning but as a moral diagnosis. Violence reproduces the very logic it seeks to overcome.

Moreover, Christ explicitly affirms that He possesses the capacity for violent resistance, noting that legions of angels stand at His disposal (Matt. 26:53). The refusal is therefore not born of weakness but of divine self-disclosure. Power in the Kingdom is revealed not through coercive domination but through self-giving love. The cross becomes the definitive revelation of divine authority precisely in its rejection of violence.

Patristic commentators consistently interpret this moment as paradigmatic. John Chrysostom emphasises that Christ allows injustice in order to heal injustice, absorbing violence rather than replicating it. The victory achieved is not military but ontological: the defeat of death through death itself. Violence is revealed to be incapable of producing true reconciliation.

This Christological lens governs Orthodox engagement with all biblical violence. Christ does not merely temper Old Testament warfare; He fulfils and judges it by revealing God's final intention for humanity. The Kingdom advances not through force but through transformed hearts.

Old Testament Warfare and the Logic of Divine Accommodation

Appeals to Old Testament warfare remain among the most common theological strategies employed to defend contemporary violence. Narratives of divinely commanded battles, Israel’s territorial conquests, and the frequent depiction of God as “Lord of Hosts” are often marshalled to suggest that war can be morally endorsed or even willed by God. Such appeals, however, rest upon a hermeneutical flattening that collapses descriptive narrative into moral norm and detaches individual texts from the canonical movement of salvation history.

The Old Testament does not conceal the violent context within which Israel emerged. Warfare pervades its narratives because Israel existed within a world structured by tribal conflict, imperial domination, and survival-driven struggle. Yet pervasiveness must not be confused with moral endorsement. Scripture frequently records human actions without presenting them as ethical ideals.

Even where divine command is portrayed, such actions are bound to a specific covenantal economy. They occur within a revelatory context mediated through law, prophecy, and divine presence. These commands are not presented as timeless moral permissions transferable across peoples, nations, or historical moments. The Old Testament itself resists such universalisation by embedding warfare within Israel’s unique relationship with God.

Moreover, the prophetic tradition repeatedly critiques Israel’s reliance upon military strength. Hosea condemns trust in arms rather than repentance (Hos. 1:7), while Isaiah warns against alliances and weaponry replacing dependence upon God (Isa. 31:1). God’s refusal to allow David to build the Temple because of bloodshed (1 Chron. 22:8) further underscores that even historically instrumental warfare carries moral cost.

Patristic theology consistently interprets these narratives through the lens of divine accommodation. Gregory of Nyssa warns that literal ethical application of conquest narratives risks attributing injustice to God (Life of Moses II.44–45). The Fathers overwhelmingly spiritualise Israel’s wars as typological representations of the inner struggle against sin. The enemies become passions; the promised land becomes the life of virtue. Warfare thus functions pedagogically rather than paradigmatically.

This approach reflects a broader Orthodox hermeneutic in which Scripture is read canonically, Christologically, and ascetically. Biblical violence is neither ignored nor justified but interpreted as revelatory of humanity’s fallen condition and God’s patient condescension within it. God acts within violence without belonging to it. The question Orthodoxy asks is not what actions appear in Scripture, but how Scripture forms the believer toward likeness to Christ.

The movement from Old Testament accommodation to New Testament transfiguration forms a coherent theological trajectory rather than ethical discontinuity. God’s engagement with violent humanity unfolds pedagogically, meeting humanity within broken structures while gradually revealing its final intention: peace.

The law itself bears witness to this dynamic. While regulating violence within Israel’s life, it simultaneously restricts retaliation and places boundaries upon coercive power. The lex talionis, often misinterpreted as sanctioning revenge, in fact functions to limit escalation. The trajectory consistently moves toward restraint rather than legitimisation.

This pedagogical movement culminates in Christ, who neither abolishes moral concern nor intensifies coercive justice, but transforms the logic of human relations entirely. The Sermon on the Mount does not introduce unrealistic idealism but reveals the anthropology of the Kingdom—an anthropology in which mercy, enemy-love, and reconciliation replace domination as modes of power.

The apostolic Church embodies this transformation not through political withdrawal but through nonviolent witness within violent societies. Early Christians refused military service in many contexts, not as ideological pacifism but as fidelity to a new mode of life shaped by Christ’s victory over death. Where later historical circumstances produced accommodation to imperial structures, the underlying spiritual suspicion of killing never disappeared.

Orthodox ethics, therefore, reads Scripture not as a repository of competing moral permissions but as a coherent narrative of divine healing. Violence belongs to the pedagogy of fallen history; peace belongs to the ontology of redeemed creation.

Orthodoxy Beyond Pacifism and Just War

Orthodoxy is frequently mischaracterised as occupying an ambiguous middle ground between absolute pacifism and Just War theory. In reality, it operates according to a distinct moral grammar that resists both ideological absolutism and juridical justification.

The Orthodox tradition never systematised the criteria by which war could be morally justified—not out of ethical indifference, but out of theological conviction. While recognising that coercive force has been historically employed to restrain greater evils, Orthodoxy consistently refused to render killing spiritually acceptable through moral argument. Violence may be tolerated as a tragic necessity, but it is never affirmed as a moral good.

This pastoral realism is encapsulated in the principle of oikonomia, which prioritises salvation and healing over abstract moral legality (Paipais, 2024). Rather than asking whether violence meets juridical criteria, Orthodoxy asks how violence shapes the human person. Jim Forest articulates this tradition clearly, noting the Church’s persistent resistance to sanctifying war even in defensive contexts (Forest, 2005; 2007).

Where Western ethics tends to locate moral reasoning in external conditions—legitimate authority, proportionality, last resort—Orthodoxy locates it within the transformation or deformation of the soul. This difference is decisive. Even when violence appears externally justified, Orthodoxy remains sceptical of claims that it can be spiritually unproblematic.

A frequent objection to Orthodox resistance to war justification concerns the defence of the innocent. Surely, it is argued, violence becomes morally obligatory when necessary to prevent grave injustice or protect vulnerable lives. Orthodox theology approaches this claim with tragic realism rather than theoretical permission.

The Fathers acknowledge that force may restrain greater evil within fallen history. Yet this recognition never becomes moral sanctification. Violence remains intrinsically disordered even when instrumentally necessary. The logic is not consequentialist but anthropological: the act may limit external harm while still damaging the soul of the one who commits it.

This is why Orthodox tradition simultaneously tolerates coercion and prescribes repentance. The tragic necessity of restraining evil does not transform killing into virtue. Rather, it reveals the depth of fallenness in which even necessary actions carry spiritual cost.

This perspective avoids both naïve pacifism and moral laundering. It affirms the obligation to protect life while refusing to narrate violence as righteous. The Christian who uses force does so in sorrow, restraint, and repentance, not in moral confidence.

Such tragic realism preserves the gravity of violence while acknowledging historical complexity. It refuses the comforting fiction that evil can be overcome by becoming its instrument.

While Orthodox ethics diverges from Just War theory in method and anthropology, it is important to acknowledge the historical seriousness with which Western Christianity sought to restrain violence. Augustine’s reflections, developed later by Aquinas and subsequent moral theologians, were motivated by pastoral concern to limit warfare’s destructiveness rather than to encourage it. Criteria such as right authority, proportionality, and last resort functioned as moral brakes within societies already committed to coercive power.

From an Orthodox perspective, however, the difficulty lies not primarily in these criteria themselves but in their implicit moral confidence. Just War reasoning locates ethical legitimacy in external conditions rather than in the actor's spiritual formation. Violence becomes morally permissible when circumstances align correctly, even if it remains regrettable. Orthodoxy, by contrast, refuses to locate moral legitimacy in situational alignment. The act of killing remains spiritually disfiguring regardless of political necessity.

This divergence reflects deeper theological differences concerning sin and transformation. Western moral frameworks tend to operate within juridical categories of guilt and permission, whereas Orthodoxy operates therapeutically, concerned with the healing or deformation of the soul. The Orthodox refusal to construct justificatory frameworks is therefore not ethical minimalism but anthropological seriousness.

Where Just War theory seeks moral clarity within history, Orthodoxy insists that history itself remains wounded and ambiguous until the Kingdom’s fulfilment. Violence may sometimes limit greater harm, but it never becomes an expression of restored creation. The cross, not political order, remains the interpretive centre of Christian ethics.

Martyrdom as the Ethical Horizon of Patristic Christianity

A decisive contribution of contemporary Orthodox scholarship—particularly that of Krastu Banev—is the recovery of martyrdom as the moral horizon of early Christian ethics. Early Christianity framed courage not through the legitimacy of force but through faithful endurance in the face of coercion (Banev, 2015; 2021). Martyrdom was not exceptional heroism but paradigmatic witness.

The martyr refuses to kill, to hate, or to lie even under threat of death. This moral imagination stands in sharp contrast to modern narratives that frame violence as character-forming or morally clarifying. The Church’s primary exemplars of courage are not warriors but witnesses.

This framework explains the Fathers’ consistent treatment of killing as spiritually injurious. Basil the Great’s penitential prescriptions for soldiers who have killed (Canon 13) are therapeutic rather than punitive. Violence wounds the soul and requires healing. Killing may be socially excused, but never spiritually neutral.

Maximus the Confessor deepens this anthropology by locating coercion and domination within disordered desire rooted in the Fall (Ambigua 7). True power is the free will of the good of the other. Violence trains the will toward control rather than communion.

Orthodox ethics thus refuses to treat violence as morally neutral, even when historically tolerated. Participation in killing deforms perception, habituates the passions to fear and anger, and fragments interior coherence.

Patristic anthropology situates ethical action within the gradual formation of the passions. Actions are never isolated events but practices that train desire. Maximus the Confessor identifies repeated acts of coercion as habituating the soul toward domination, gradually obscuring the capacity for compassion and free communion.

Violence, therefore, functions pedagogically in the negative sense: it trains perception to categorise persons as threats, obstacles, or targets. The enemy becomes an abstraction rather than a neighbour. This transformation is not merely psychological but spiritual, reshaping the will itself.

Basil’s penitential canons reflect acute awareness of this formative dynamic. The concern is not legal guilt but the reorientation of desire. Killing disrupts the soul’s movement toward love and requires ascetical healing.

Orthodox ethics thus understands warfare not simply as a crisis decision but as an environment of formation. Extended exposure to violence shapes moral imagination long after conflict ends. This insight corresponds with contemporary research on moral injury but arises from far older spiritual wisdom.

Violence, Moral Injury, and the Necessity of Repentance

One of the most striking absences in contemporary Christian discourse on war is sustained theological engagement with moral injury. While psychological trauma is increasingly acknowledged in both military and pastoral contexts, the deeper spiritual wound inflicted upon conscience and identity through participation in violence remains under-theologised. Orthodox tradition, however, has long recognised this reality, though articulated through the language of repentance and healing rather than clinical terminology.

The insistence of the Fathers that killing requires penitential response reflects neither legalism nor condemnation but theological realism. Violence fractures the inner unity of the person. It habituates the will to override empathy, trains perception toward dehumanisation, and normalises fear and domination as modes of relation. This fragmentation stands in direct opposition to the Orthodox understanding of salvation as the restoration of communion within the human person and between humanity and God.

Isaac the Syrian describes the merciful heart as one incapable of bearing harm inflicted upon any creature (Ascetical Homily 71). From this perspective, even violence exercised under extreme necessity constitutes a loss that must be acknowledged, mourned, and healed. The refusal to recognise this loss—whether through triumphalist rhetoric, nationalistic myth, or theological justification—deepens spiritual injury by obscuring moral truthfulness.

Penitential practices associated with warfare within Orthodox tradition, therefore, function as therapeutic medicine rather than juridical punishment. Confession, fasting, prayer, and temporary exclusion from Eucharistic communion are directed toward restoring interior coherence and reorienting the will toward mercy. They preserve the Church from calling darkness light and protect the conscience from numbing.

This patristic realism anticipates contemporary accounts of moral injury, which recognise that participation in violence can shatter moral frameworks, distort identity, and undermine the capacity for trust and empathy. Orthodoxy offers not abstraction but healing, insisting that no historical necessity renders killing spiritually cost-free.

For young adults shaped by cultures that normalise violence through entertainment, ideological rhetoric, and digital abstraction, this insight is particularly urgent. The danger is not only physical harm but the gradual erosion of moral sensitivity. Orthodox theology insists that the Christian must never become comfortable with killing, even where it is tragically tolerated.

Nationalism, Providentialism, and Theological Distortion

Periods of approaching conflict frequently generate the quiet fusion of Christian identity with national or civilisational loyalty. Political survival becomes a moral absolute, and theological language is mobilised to legitimate coercion. Enemies become abstractions, civilian suffering becomes collateral necessity, and cruelty becomes intelligible.

Orthodox theology has repeatedly identified such convergence as a form of idolatry insofar as it substitutes historical projects for the Kingdom of God (Orthodox Peace Fellowship, 2019). Once faith becomes chaplain to power, repentance is displaced by destiny and mercy by necessity.

Closely related to this distortion is eschatological providentialism—the interpretation of contemporary conflict as divinely scripted, inevitable, or the fulfilment of prophetic timelines. Christ explicitly resists this logic, warning against reading wars as immediate signs of consummation (Matt. 24:6). Such events belong not to apocalyptic certainty but to the ambiguous unfolding of fallen history.

Patristic eschatology understands the “last days” not as a geopolitical sequence but as an inaugurated reality in Christ. Maximus the Confessor interprets eschatological language as revealing the spiritual orientation of history rather than predicting chronological events (Ambigua 10). To frame modern warfare as eschatologically privileged, therefore, distorts both hope and responsibility.

Providentialist rhetoric carries profound moral danger. If war is divinely scripted, repentance becomes unnecessary, restraint becomes disobedience, and suffering becomes an instrument rather than a tragedy. Orthodox theology counters this fatalism by insisting that divine providence never nullifies human responsibility. God works within broken history without sanctifying its violence.

Conscience under Constraint and the Persistence of Moral Agency

As the possibility of expanded conflict increases, Orthodox Christians may face varying degrees of coercion, including conscription, economic pressure, social expectations, or familial obligations. Orthodoxy does not offer a single prescriptive response applicable to all situations. It does, however, insist that moral agency is never entirely suspended by historical inevitability.

The Orthodox doctrine of synergia affirms that divine grace never abolishes human freedom, even under severe constraint. John of Damascus maintains that responsibility persists wherever intentionality remains (Exposition II.27). Christians remain accountable not only for actions but for the dispositions formed through them.

This has concrete pastoral implications. Discernment must be ecclesial rather than ideological, rooted in prayer, confession, and spiritual guidance rather than algorithmic outrage or political conformity. Where participation in violence cannot be avoided, the least violent form of service should be sought. Where refusal is demanded by conscience, it must be undertaken without contempt for those unable to refuse.

Equally central are the works of mercy. Medical care, refugee support, trauma counselling, reconciliation initiatives, and rebuilding communities are not secondary responses to war but primary expressions of Christian vocation. The Church’s witness does not end where killing begins.

Formation Rather Than Mobilisation: The University as Ecclesial Space

Within this theological framework, the primary task of Orthodox university communities is not political mobilisation but moral and spiritual formation. Universities function not merely as sites of debate but as environments in which habits of thought, moral imagination, and identity are shaped.

Orthodox student societies, therefore, bear particular responsibility in times of looming conflict. Their vocation is not to generate consensus positions on war but to cultivate disciplined disagreement without dehumanisation, prayerful reflection without paralysis, and moral seriousness without despair.

This formation requires sustained engagement with Scripture read patristically rather than polemically, teaching on repentance and moral injury as normative Christian realities, refusal of nationalist and apocalyptic sensationalism, and creation of spaces where conscientious objection, reluctant service, and mercy-based vocations can be explored without coercion.

Such formation resists the binary logic of “for” or “against” war and replaces it with a thicker Christian vocabulary: tragedy, discernment, restraint, healing, and hope. In this sense, Orthodox university communities become microcosms of the Church’s wider vocation—to remain human when history pressures humanity toward dehumanisation.

A crucial feature of Orthodox ethics, often overlooked in contemporary discussions, is its refusal to abstract moral reasoning from spiritual formation. Western ethical systems frequently separate normative judgement from ascetical practice, generating principles that operate independently of character formation.

Orthodoxy rejects this separation. Moral discernment emerges within a life of prayer, repentance, sacramental participation, and communal accountability. Ethics is not merely analytical but therapeutic.

This methodological difference explains Orthodoxy’s resistance to frameworks for justifying war. Such frameworks assume moral clarity can be achieved through correct criteria. Orthodox theology holds that moral clarity arises from purified perception, shaped by humility and mercy.

This does not render Orthodoxy ethically vague; it renders it spiritually demanding. The Christian is not asked merely to calculate outcomes but to become a certain kind of person—one capable of loving enemies, bearing suffering, and resisting dehumanisation.

Conclusion

Eastern Orthodoxy does not promise moral clarity when it comes to war. It promises truthfulness. It refuses to sanitise violence, absolutise historical necessity, or collapse divine providence into geopolitical destiny. Instead, it insists that repentance remains real, responsibility persists under constraint, and mercy remains obligatory even amid coercion.

Orthodoxy does not ask when war becomes just but how the Christian remains faithful within a world that wages war. Violence may be endured as a tragic concession, but it never becomes spiritually normative. The Church’s witness in an age of renewed militarisation is therefore neither an ideological alignment nor a moral withdrawal, but an ascetical fidelity to the peace that judges all coercion.

For young adults formed within cultures of polarisation, abstraction, and moral simplification, this witness is demanding. It offers no heroic mythologies and no ethical shortcuts. It offers instead the possibility of remaining truthful before God when history pressures humanity toward cruelty.

The Orthodox response to war is ultimately Christological. Christ enters violence without reproducing it, exposes its false power, and reveals that life rather than death has the final word. The Christian vocation in every age is to live within that revelation—even when the world insists that violence is inevitable.

Bibliography

Athanasius of Alexandria (2011) On the Incarnation. Translated by J. Behr. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Banev, K. (2015) Unpublished conference papers and lectures on martyrdom and Christian ethics. Durham: Durham University.

Banev, K. (2021) ‘Violence, witness, and the formation of the Christian person’, Studies in Church History, 57, pp. 233–249.

Basil the Great (1994) Canonical Letters. In: Schaff, P. and Wace, H. (eds.) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, pp. 229–249.

Chrysostom, J. (1995) Homilies on Matthew. Translated by R.C. Hill. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Forest, J. (2005) War and Peace: An Orthodox Christian View. New York: Orbis Books.

Forest, J. (2007) War and Peace in the Orthodox Tradition. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Harakas, S.S. (1982) Toward Transfigured Life: The Theoria of Eastern Orthodox Ethics. Minneapolis: Light and Life.

Hays, R.B. (1996) The Moral Vision of the New Testament. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Gregory Nazianzen (2002) On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by L. Wickham and F. Williams. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Gregory of Nyssa (1978) The Life of Moses. Translated by A.J. Malherbe and E. Ferguson. New York: Paulist Press.

Ignatius of Antioch (1989) The Epistles of Ignatius. Translated by M. Staniforth. London: Penguin Classics.

Isaac the Syrian (1984) The Ascetical Homilies. Translated by A.J. Wensinck and S.P. Brock. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

John of Damascus (1981) Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Translated by F.H. Chase. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

LeMasters, P. (2011) ‘Orthodox perspectives on peace, war and violence’, In Communion. Available online. Accessed 6 February 2026.

Maximus the Confessor (1985) On Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua. Translated by N. Constas. New York: Paulist Press.

Orthodox Peace Fellowship (2019) For the Peace from Above: An Orthodox Resource Book on War, Peace and Nationalism. In Communion. Available online. Accessed 6 February 2026.

Paipais, V. (2024) ‘Between pacifism and Just War: oikonomia and Eastern Orthodox social ethics’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 37(2), pp. 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468241257767

The Holy Bible (1989) Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ware, K. (1997) The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin.

Ware, K. (2000) ‘The peace of God and the violence of men’, in The Inner Kingdom. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, pp. 78–96.