Politicians “Support” Orthodoxy before Elections

A couple of weeks ago, www.versii.com carried an interview with People’s Deputy Andriy Derkach, recorded by an Ortodoks journalist. From the story emerges a lofty figure; Mr. Derkach appears totally incapable of taking “a neutral stand in the struggle between good and evil.” All the numerous editions controlled by him are eulogized. Naturally, one can only feel sarcastic about the author’s enthusiasm, knowing the celebrity’s “specific” political and business methods. What is really interesting about the interview is Andriy Derkach’s fearless, truly Quixotic defense of “canonic” Orthodoxy – i.e., Moscow Patriarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

First, what does that defense of canonic Orthodoxy actually mean? Defense of what against what? MP UOC is Ukraine’s largest Orthodox church. It is triumphant, constantly growing in size, never being impeded by anyone or anything, building temples, freely conducting its external and internal church policy, teaching future priests at its seminaries and academies. Its hierarchs are present – and at the podium – at all official events, they regularly appear on television; their monasteries are visited by Ukraine’s highest ranking officials; their main cathedral was rebuilt at state expense. The state ignores the fact that the cathedral is not Ukrainian but Russian in every respect, where the services are performed in Russian and strict subordination to the Patriarch of Moscow is observed (considering that the Patriarchy in Moscow is part of the Russian establishment), and where certain religious and secular figures act in a manner leaving no doubt as to their orientation.

So what is this all about? Where does that paranoia and ghetto mentality come from? What makes certain MP-UOC-affiliated politicians, journalists, and clergymen display that inferiority complex? Why is Mr. Derkach so emotional about his heroic defense of that church? Why does that church allow itself to be manipulated? One of the reasons, of course, is their longing for that period when Orthodoxy occupied an exclusive place in society and actually had no “rivals” (one is reminded of the status of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Both in tsarist Russia and in the Soviet Union all the other religions and confessions were either banned or ruthlessly discriminated against by the state. The current situation is dramatically different. The Ukrainian constitution provides for the freedom of the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, as well as various Protestant confessions. Otherwise we would not be a democracy but something like Cuba or Iraq.

Also, it should be remembered that the Orthodox adherents, albeit a majority (considering all three Orthodox churches), statistically constitute 55-60% of the Ukrainian believers. What about the remaining 45%, also citizens of Ukraine? Issue interdictions? Forcefully convert them into Orthodoxy or send them to Siberia (as was practiced not so long ago)? Would our Orthodox Christians agree to have their former exclusive status restored in this manner?

Needless to say, Orthodox people have lost nothing after the Orthodox Church lost its exclusive position; people still have their temples and shepherds and live by the Orthodox calendar, the more so that the most important red-letter days are now official holidays.

In contrast, the situation with the Orthodox clergy has aggravated, indeed. Now they have to reckon with numerous “rivals” in the spiritual field that sometimes prove considerably more enterprising than the Orthodox fathers and bishops. In some churches the religious training is at a higher level; others have benevolent projects on a larger scale; in still others, parish priests know every parishioner by name. After all has been said and done, I think that this challenge of the times will only benefit our traditional Orthodox Church. Who knows, maybe some of the lost sheep will return to the flock.

As it is, some at the upper church echelons refuse to accept the 21st century realities; one hears constant references to the “tradition” (not to mention the “canonicity”). There are voices of dissatisfaction with the government that somehow fails to ban all the other churches.

Getting back to the chivalrous defenders of MP UOC, with Andriy Derkach proudly marching in the vanguard, here the motive force is, without doubt, the presence of millions of parishioners constituting a very sizable potential electorate, with quite a few politicians (among them Comrade Petro Symonenko) eager to curry favors. Also, this electorate is structured, for smart politicians regard every house of God exclusively as a canvassing center. There are other advantages to such “procanonical orientation.” Care for MP UOC and cherishing the Orthodox unity of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus like the apple of one’s eye, all this being a top priority with His Holiness Patriarch Aleksiy II, appeal to that opposition electorate composed of Russians living in Ukraine. And there is, of course, the image of a friend of Russia to be considered.

Getting back to the interview with Mr. Derkach, it has to be stated that he was done a disservice by his secretaries and speech writers. He made bad mistakes in some of his answers. For example, he said that “the Orthodox Church begins with the Apostles.” Historian and Archpriest PСtr Smirnov in his History of the Orthodox Christian Church (1916) writes that Orthodoxy started being established in the 4th century and the process was completed in the 9th century. Russian Archpriest PСtr Smirnov further claims that the history of the Russian Church began with the baptism of Kyiv Rus’ – i.e., in the 10th century.

Another example concerns an unswerving observance of the historical Orthodox tradition. Mikhail Posnov, a noted Russian historian, wrote in his History of the Christian Church (Brussels, 1964) that the Christian Church adopted several enactments on pentarchy in the second half of the first millennium of the Christian era. One read that the world’s five patriarchies – in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem – were approved by God to exercise administration. At present, contrary to that ancient tradition, Ecumenical Orthodoxy has three times more patriarchies and autocephalous archbishoprics.

Also, it was very interesting to learn that the esteemed people’s deputy sees Ukraine’s future not in economic progress and national well-being, not in an advanced democracy and civil society, but in a polity based on traditional Orthodox values “as an alternative to an ethnographic territory unable to develop independently.” (Ethnographic territory? Most likely Mr. Derkach meant an ethnic territory.)

May I remind the reader that most independent [autocephalous] churches of the Orthodox world are national (or ethnographic, to borrow from Mr. Derkach’s parlance) – e.g., the ones in Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia... And almost all of them (except the members of the said pentarchy) won their autocephaly the hard way; at times the process would last for centuries on end. Hopefully, Ukrainian Orthodoxy is embarking on the process, so that another large (if not the largest) autocephalous Orthodox church will emerge one of these days.

Indeed, some of the Ukrainian politicians use big brushes painting pictures of both our past and future. Regrettably, all such canvases are meant for ignorant viewers. There is, however, a phrase in that interview with which this author wholeheartedly agrees: “The times have changed.” Absolutely. Hard as politicians will try, the Orthodox Church will never be the way it was during those centuries of unquestioning subordination to secular authorities, politicians, and demagogues. The believers have also changed. Therefore, it is best to let the Church mind its business; it can well do without all those guardians with their mess of pottage.