[Note: This is a lengthy prose essay, not a poem. I will preserve its argumentative structure and meaning rather than imposing a poetic form.]
The war in Ukraine has revealed how critically important religious freedom is for protecting national identity and state sovereignty. The war in Ukraine is literally a war for freedom, including—and especially—religious freedom.
Ukraine demonstrates consistent commitment to a model where freedom is linked with peaceful religious diversity, and is prepared to sacrifice to uphold this way of life. The ideology of the "Russian world," by contrast, promotes "Orthodox" uniformity and encourages aggression against dissenters and those of different faiths.
Those familiar with Russian history are not surprised by their accustomed tolerance for Orthodox slavery and intolerance of others' freedom. What is surprising is that even against the backdrop of this terrible war, many opinion leaders in Europe and the United States remain in the shadow of the Kremlin and captive to Orthodox mythology.
At work here is not only Russian propaganda, but also disillusionment with Western Christianity, fatigue with freedom and its contradictions, as well as naiveté about the "mysterious, profound, and ancient Russian spirituality."
All these factors result in Western media and academic publications continuing to circulate baseless claims that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine suffers cruel persecution, that Ukraine is a battlefield between traditional Orthodox spirituality and secularized Western Christianity, and that Russia is the last bastion of traditional values.
The myth of Russian spirituality, monopolized and guarded by Russian Orthodoxy, is the main obstacle to adequate understanding of the religious freedom situation in the region. The logic here is simple, "iron," military: if Russian Orthodox tradition is considered authentic, then it must be defended, even at the cost of suppressing all other traditions, which the Russian Orthodox Church leadership calls non-canonical, heretical, and pro-Western. Most Western sympathizers of Russian Orthodoxy are not prepared to go that far and try to sit on two chairs—combining their naive enchantment with Moscow Orthodoxy with politically correct references to religious freedom and tolerance. In practice, this helps justify the war. In this naive optic, the war appears holy, where true Orthodoxy defends its freedom from the harmful influence of the West, which captures new canonical territories and threatens the very existence of holy faith and holy Rus. Supposedly, it is the West that conquers, while Russia liberates its ancient lands. Thus the myth of authentic Russian Orthodoxy becomes the source and justification for aggression against Ukraine and its religious freedom.
Accordingly, to expose this war as criminal and not at all holy, we need to do intellectual and spiritual work to demythologize Russian Orthodoxy, which turns out to be fake, a forgery, a false Christianity.
One could go another, simpler route and say: "holy faith" that justifies war against peaceful neighbors proves by this very attempt at justification its false character. One could analyze the theological documents of the Russian Orthodox Church and the statements of its hierarchs and show their incompatibility with the tradition of the early Church and the spirit of the Gospel, or go the route of historical deconstruction and show Russian Orthodoxy's subordination to the state and its political interests. In any case, exposing the myth of Russian Orthodoxy as true Christianity helps expose this war as criminal against Ukraine, its religious freedom and diversity. And, conversely, enchantment with Russian Orthodoxy turns Western theologians, philosophers, and politicians into advocates of the devil, into naive accomplices in war.
Even during the war, the West publishes numerous books about the miraculous revival of Orthodoxy in Russia. Is it not time to admit that there was no revival of Orthodoxy at all? What was there? There was a revival of interest in Orthodoxy, but not a revival of Orthodoxy itself. There was a revival of interest in the church, but not a revival of the church. There were mutations of Russian statehood, during which the Orthodox Church was given new, more ambitious tasks. Now it was to protect not temple space, not a certain niche of religious life. Now it was to sanctify, justify, bless the aggressive expansion of the "Russian world" in exchange for certain privileges, or perhaps even without any reward, simply to preserve life.
It should be recalled that the Russian Orthodox Church has been suffocating in the tight embrace of the state since the beginning of its history. Nothing remains of it but the name. In essence, it is one of the departments of the KGB, whatever they call it now.
When they say that Ukraine restricts the freedom of Russian Orthodoxy, they show complete misunderstanding of how this form of Orthodoxy is connected to the Russian state and its criminal policies. This religious organization has no freedom from the state, no independence in decision-making, and this makes its structures as dangerous as any other power structures of the Russian state. As a sovereign state, Ukraine has every right to limit the influence of the Russian state, which it exercises under the guise of pseudo-religious organizations.
So, to understand the situation with religious freedom in Ukraine, one must proceed from the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is not a victim but an accomplice in the criminal policy of the Russian state. Sacralizing Russian Orthodoxy as a victim in need of protection of its freedoms turns everything upside down and turns demands for religious freedom against itself. Mythologizing Russian Orthodoxy as true Christianity denies all other traditions the right to exist and be free. For Western authors this may be naiveté, but for Russian propagandists it is deliberate manipulation.
In any case, Western society's naiveté regarding fake Orthodoxy harms the interests of religious freedom. One might propose a more general thesis that fake forms of religiosity (rather than the favorite bugbears of traditionalists like secularism-liberalism-socialism-postmodernism) are the main threat to religion and religious freedom. But I know this thought will be hard for even freedom-loving American evangelical Protestants to grasp.
Several years ago I inadvertently witnessed an Orthodox priest instructing students at an American Mennonite college that true spirituality remained only in Russia, and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is the true leader of world Christianity. This was during time set aside for prayer and study of God's Word (Chapel time). But instead of the Bible, the speaker opened one of Patriarch Kirill's books and enlightened students and faculty with lengthy quotes from it. All my colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies were enchanted by what they heard. They met superficial and harsh criticism of the secular West and secularized Christianity with loud applause.
It is precisely to such naive and weak Western Christianity that questions necessarily arise: what is wrong with it, where is the distinction between good and evil, where is the experience and wisdom of ages, where is spiritual strength? Demythologization of historical forms of religion cannot and should not be limited to Russian Orthodoxy alone (or so-called "Russian Protestantism"); it touches other churches and international organizations (such as the World Council of Churches). Perhaps that is precisely why the West prefers to express concern while making no decisive conclusions. Because recognizing Russian Orthodoxy as a fake form of religiosity raises questions for ourselves: how did we fall into such deception, why did we become such easy prey to propaganda, where did we turn onto the path of endless compromises?
Today has come the time to acknowledge that Russian Orthodoxy is a product of myth-making. But in the mirror of this fake Orthodoxy we see the shortcomings of naive, careless, self-satisfied Western Christianity. To admit our mistakes in perceiving Russian Orthodoxy means to admit a share of our own responsibility for the war, and thereby to admit our weakness, our vulnerability to evil and lies. So far we have not seen an example of such deep self-analysis.
The myth of Russian Orthodoxy as ancient, traditional, true, and infallible is a challenge to religious freedom—both of other churches and confessions and of its own faithful, who have become hostages to a political and militaristic project called the "Russian world." Moreover, this myth threatens not only the freedom of its own and others; it threatens the very idea of religious freedom itself, distorting it, reducing it to absurdity, openly mocking it. Thus the Orthodox Church blesses the Russian army to "liberate" Ukraine from "Nazis," calls the occupiers "liberators," and thereby gives them indulgence for all conceivable and inconceivable crimes. At the same time, it hypocritically accuses the Ukrainian authorities of persecuting canonical Orthodoxy. In this assault on freedom and mockery of freedom, Russian Orthodoxy reveals its un-Christian, anti-Christian character.
This sets before us a series of methodological, moral, and theological questions. Regarding methodology, we must determine how to deal with fake forms of religiosity: whether to classify them as "destructive cults and sects," categorize them as "terrorist organizations" (or as "spiritual sponsors of terrorism"), transfer them to the category of political parties or public organizations, or for now leave them on the list of religious organizations with a special notation, carefully observing their further mutations. In moral terms, the question arises of the situation with religious freedom within the Russian Orthodox Church itself: if its own priests admit that it is unbearably difficult for them to remain there and they cannot change anything, what does this say about the moral character of church leadership and the entire organization; how can the church preach to society about freedom if there is no freedom within it? In theological terms, it is necessary to answer the question of what is the phenomenon of the Russian Orthodox Church in the context of evangelical teaching, the historical experience of the church, and ecclesiology as the science of the church. Here one must give an objective assessment of the church status of what is so proudly called "Orthodoxy."
Belonging to the spiritual tradition of evangelical Christians-Baptists, who valued above all personal relationships with God, the authority of God's Word, and freedom of conscience, I long ago concluded that Russian Orthodoxy values none of these things and therefore lacks the marks of the church. The fact that there are individual living priests and communities there does not change the overall impression of deadness and apostasy. Such an assessment can be called a subjective opinion and disregarded. But the attitude of Russian Orthodoxy toward religious freedom is a socially notable and consistent manifestation of intolerance that speaks volumes. The war in Ukraine is a continuation of the war against freedom that Russian Orthodoxy has waged since the beginning of its history. And this willingness not only to preach against freedom but also to bless those who kill freedom and free people reveals the fake character of Russian Orthodoxy and places upon it responsibility for the war.
