An “Offensive” Icon?
I realize that some people find the graphic above offensive. This is a reasonable response and is likely the artist's intention. But what is it that is offensive about the image?
When I posted this on my personal Facebook page, a number of people took offense to the use of an iconographic style to make a political point. And yet, as I pointed out in the comments, icons frequently contain political imagery. For example, in this icon by Theophanes the Cretan (1490–1559) we see a soldier in a 16th century uniform:
Others objected to the geopolitical point being made about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Again, this is not uncommon in Orthodox iconography. Theophanes clothes the soldier in a Western uniform making we clear his view of the West.
Or take a more contemporary example. The icon of Czar Nicholas II and his family who the Orthodox Church of Russia commemorates as passion-bearers are dressed not in period clothing but medieval attire:
Here too a political point is being made. By dressing the family in anachronistic attire, the icon evokes the glory days of Holy Russia.
An Artistic Expression of a Moral Truth
My point here is this. Icons are not simply “devotional” or “spiritual” but dogmatic; they make a theological point in an artistic manner. This means that while the presence of Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Kirill at the scourging of Jesus might be unsettling and even offensive it is not blasphemous or an abuse of the tradition. Rather as we saw in our two examples, like other iconographers the artist is making a political point about their role in the invasion of Ukraine
Instead, what we see is the use of an iconographic style to give expression to a moral truth. Both Putin and Patriarch Kirill are responsible (albeit in different ways) for an unjust, criminal, and sinful war of aggression against Ukraine. Worse, they have justified their sins by appealing to the Gospel. The image, in other words, is a statement of moral theology and should be evaluated as such.
Our Lost Orthodox Moral Mindset
And herein lies the controversy; many Orthodox Christians (like many Christians in other traditions) have lost (or likely, never had) the ability to engage in moral theological reasoning.
Criticizing Russia for launching an unjust war that they are prosecuting in an unjust manner, doesn't mean that they don't have legitimate concerns. Likewise, to say that Ukraine has been unjustly invaded doesn't mean that this nation is without its own faults.
Unfortunately, Christians are as prone to tribalism as the rest of the culture. We want to see the world around us in terms of “good guys” (our side!) and “bad guys” (or, the other side). And while it has fallen out of style to say so, this is why moral reasoning must be objective and humble.
Moral Reasoning: Objective & Humble
Objective means that my reasoning conforms both to the Christian moral tradition as it has been given AND to the facts of the specific situation. I am no freer to say that war is a morally good thing than I am to bless a same-sex marriage. To affirm either of these as morally good or suggest that they are supported by tradition is simply wrong.
Humility then first of all requires my fidelity and obedience to the moral tradition. I can’t begin the conversation by looking for exceptions that support my opinion. But too often, I find myself tempted to just this; I look to the tradition to justify my own views rather than subjecting my own views to the tradition.
Humility also requires, however, that I am aware of the concrete circumstances of the situation. While war is a sin, culpability for war is not necessarily equally divided. There are times when war is unavoidable because—as Ukraine illustrates—not making war leaves the innocent at risk.
Healing the Sin of War
This is why we think war is a sin. Not just because it kills but because it creates a situation in which otherwise peaceful men and women must take up arms in defense of innocent lives.
Likewise, waging a war creates a situation in which good people (on both sides of the conflict) are subjected to moral horrors and risk being damaged not only physically, but psychologically, morally, and spiritually. This is why St. Basil sets a period of penance for those who kill during a war:
Our Fathers did not consider the killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not clean-handed (Canons of St Basil, 13).
Whatever may have been St. Basil’s judgment about war as such, here he speaks as a pastor who understands the damage done by even a just war. The saint’s words highlight the tragedy of living in a fallen world. Sometimes doing the right thing brings with it a terrible moral cost. We may tolerate a war but a nation and a nation’s leaders can’t escape culpability for the consequences of even a necessary and just war.
And, once again, we need to be clear that nations and their leaders don’t necessarily bear equal fault for a war. A leader who launches an unjust war is guilty of the harm committed by its prosecution. This doesn’t absolve the unjustly treated nation of responsibility for its actions. Nor does it exempt that innocent nation’s soldiers of theirs.
No Justice, No Peace
What the graphic DOES point to, however, is that both Putin and Kirill bear a heavy moral burden for an unjust war. How the Church ministers to these men as well as the men and women who fought and the victims who suffered, is not clear.
What is clear, is that the war must stop and Russia must leave Ukraine—including Donbas and Crimea—and make restitution for the harm they've done before any differences can be resolved. Again, this isn’t to suggest that Ukraine is wholly on the side of the angels and Russia is the locus of all evil.
But regardless of the moral deficits and virtues of combatants, it is a gross sin against justice for one nation to invade another nation as Russia has invaded Ukraine. And whatever might be Russia's legitimate concerns, they cannot be allowed to resolve them by—much less profit from—a war that is both immoral and criminal.
The scandalous, even blasphemous, nature of the picture is not the use of iconographic themes but the moral reality to which it gives a clear—dare I say even, Orthodox—expression. Vladimir Putin and His Holiness, Patriarch Kirill, have not only launched an unjust war but have done so in the name of Christ.