Patriarch Kirill

, , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking about the complicated puzzle that is Orthodox Christianity these days

, , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about the complicated puzzle that is Orthodox Christianity these days

If you look up the word “Byzantine” in an online dictionary you will find two definitions — one quite literal and the second rather abstract.

The first definition isn’t all that hard to grasp: “relating to Byzantium (now Istanbul), the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Orthodox Church.”

The second definition is the one that best applies to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast and post, the one with this headline: “Eastern Orthodox converts, Russian spies, the FBI and the Bible Belt (#horrors).” Here’s that second meaning for Byzantine, as an adjective: “(of a system or situation) excessively complicated, and typically involving a great deal of administrative detail.”

That is certainly true and, to be blunt, there are journalists covering the painfully divided world of Eastern Orthodoxy — think Ukraine, of course — who should read that second definition several times and then meditate on it.

This is a classic case of journalists, as my journalism mentor used to say, needing to learn to “know what they don’t know.” There are subjects so complicated that, even if you think of yourself as an insider (I am a convert to Orthodox Christianity and have studied church history at the undergraduate and graduate levels), you need to approach them with great care.

This brings me to this weekend’s “think piece” from the must-bookmark website called Orthodox History: “How Did Orthodoxy Get Into This Mess?” It was written by the website’s editor, Matthew Namee, who a lawyer who serves as General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer for Orthodox Ministry Services. He is also a friend of mine and a colleague and in work linked to the Saint Constantine College in Houston.

What does “this mess” mean, in the headline? Basically, the “mess” is the early 21st century. To dig into this puzzle requires (#DUH) understanding the tragedies of the 20th century: This essay is very complex — “Byzantine,” even — but I will note a few (rather long) passages.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Still news? Media silent on pronouncements from World and National Councils of Churches

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Still news? Media silent on pronouncements from World and National Councils of Churches

Who is listening?

Preachers face that question every weekend and it’s vital for strategizing by religious organizations -- or should be. The Religion Guy has lately been pondering a long-running religion-beat puzzle that possibly warrants some analytical articles, or at least reflection on the part of journalists.

Why do U.S. power-brokers, and journalists themselves, pay little or no heed to ardent pronouncements by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCC)? After all, the WCC says it represents 352 church bodies in 120 countries that encompass 580 million Christians. The NCC reports its 37 American member bodies include more than 30 million members in 100,000 congregations.

Last year, a Religion Guy Memo promoted media attention to the WCC’s upcoming global Assembly in Germany at the start of its 75th anniversary year. 

Journalists could not have asked for a stronger news peg. Russia’s bloody invasion of Ukraine was proceeding with hotly disputed blessings from the Moscow leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church, by far the WCC’s largest member body, which created a vast humanitarian crisis for fellow Christians in Ukraine.

(That Memo put special focus on the plight facing Metropolitan Hilarion, the Moscow patriarchate’s well-known ecumenical officer and foreign envoy. There were signals that his views on the invasion were quite different than those of Patriarch Kirill, and was soon abruptly “released from his duties” and reassigned to Hungary. Follow-up, anyone?)

The September Assembly stated that it “denounces this illegal and unjustifiable war” and (without naming Russian Orthodoxy) that delegates “reject any misuse of religious language and authority to justify armed aggression.” The meeting also called for “an immediate ceasefire” and “negotiations to secure a sustainable peace” — though at the time some critics figured that stance would undercut Ukraine’s position.

The situation facing the WCC and its Orthodox members surely counts as news, and still does.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yes, what about that meeting between Pope Francis and an exiled Russian Orthodox leader?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Yes, what about that meeting between Pope Francis and an exiled Russian Orthodox leader?

So, my gentle readers, please allow me to flash back to a recent news story that I intended to discuss, but travel got in the way. This was a story that may or may not have been important, but we really don’t know because it centered on a private meeting between Pope Francis and a very symbolic Russian Orthodox leader.

Why to I say that Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest is a highly”symbolic” Orthodox leader, especially at this point in the hellish conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

To explain my use of “symbolic,” we need to look at the Associated Press story that ran with this headline: “Pope in Hungary meets with Ukrainian refugees, Russian envoy.”

Ah, but was Metropolitan Hilarion a “Russian envoy,” in this case? Hold that thought, because things get more complex in the AP lede:

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Pope Francis plunged into both sides of Russia’s war with Ukraine on Saturday, greeting some of the 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees who have fled across the border to Hungary during a public prayer service and then meeting privately with an envoy of the Russian Orthodox Church that has strongly supported the war.

First, an important point of grammar in the final clause of that sentence, as in “meeting privately with an envoy of the Russian Orthodox Church that has strongly supported the war.” I added the bold italics, stressing that this is “that,” rather than “who.”

As we will see, it appears that the AP team covering this event knew little or nothing about the recent personal history of Hilarion. Then again, AP may have — for for some reason — chosen to omit interesting and potentially important information.

Hold that thought (again), as we read some material that appears later in this story:

Immediately after greeting and encouraging the refugees, Francis … met with the Russian Orthodox Church’s representative in Hungary, Metropolitan Hilarion, who developed close relations with the Vatican during his years as the Russian church’s foreign minister. The Vatican said the 20-minute meeting at the Holy See’s embassy in Budapest was “cordial.”

The Russian church’s strong support for the Kremlin’s war has rankled the Vatican and prevented a second papal meeting with Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Machine guns in the Monastery of the Kiev Caves: Can reporters find sources for facts?

, , , , , , , , ,
Machine guns in the Monastery of the Kiev Caves: Can reporters find sources for facts?

Let me begin with some personal remarks, since it would be valid for readers to raise these issues.

Yes, I am an Orthodox believer who has — twice — worshipped with the monks of the Monastery of the Kiev Caves. I have walked its matrix of underground sanctuaries, tombs and monastic cells. It’s hard for me to imagine something more horrifying than soldiers with machine guns inside the Lavra, passing the bodies of numerous saints. I confess that, for a decade, I have prayed that we would not see a military takeover of this sacred site by forces on either side of the divides inside Ukraine.

Yes, I saw the New York Times report with this headline: “Ukraine Raids Holy Site Amid Suspicion of Orthodox Church Tied to Moscow.” I have read a dozen or so other mainstream media accounts of the rising tensions about the current Ukrainian administration considering some kind of Lavra takeover.

All of these reports are based on information from government officials and the leaders of the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which was — depending on the sources cited —created by Western Ukrainian leaders, the U.S. State Department (under the administrations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden), the government of Turkey and/or the first-among-equals Ecumenical Patriarch who leads the tiny Orthodox body that remains based in Istanbul.

These reports continue to ignore or downplay the statements and actions of the historic Ukrainian Orthodox Church, led by Metropolitan Onuphry, which has — since the day of the Russian invasion — stressed its total opposition to this action of the Vladimir Putin government in Moscow. This church, the canonical church of Ukraine for many generations, has taken steps to cut its ties to Orthodox leaders in Moscow, even as its leaders have recognized they do not have the clear authority to do so. They appear to be pleading for the wider world of Orthodoxy (as in patriarches of multiple ancient churches, not just Istanbul) to intervene, somehow, in this crisis.

As a rule, mainstream journalists have expressed little interest in the actual Orthodox traditions and laws linked to this tragedy. In particular, the press has ignored the global voices of the Orthodox who oppose Putin, but support Metropolitan Onuphry and, thus, the monks of the Lavra.

Frankly, my head is spinning as I try to deal with the myriad journalism issues involved in covering this massive story. I am aware that most journalists are limited in what they can cover, due to language issues and the difficulty of on-site work in the midst of this conflict. I want to look at two issues in this Times report because — this is a positive — it includes some remarks from an actual monk from the Kievan Caves. Such as:

Father Hieromonk Ioan, a member of the Kyiv monastery, said that the clergy there were not loyal to Moscow but did not shy away from the close historic ties with Russia. “We have certain relations with Russia and it’s painful for us what is going on now,” he said in an interview outside the monastery. …


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Ukraine's oldest Orthodox Church seeks independence, while the Lavra monastery is at risk

, , , , , , ,
Ukraine's oldest Orthodox Church seeks independence, while the Lavra monastery is at risk

This was a very important weekend in the history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine and Russia — for those (including journalists) who believe that religious traditions and symbols matter as much as statements by government officials and headlines in Western media.

At the center of the drama, of course, was the city of Kiev, as it is known in to Russians and many Ukrainians, and Kyiv, as it is known to many Ukrainians, as well as officials in the United States and the European Union.

Here’s the quotation I keep thinking about, drawn from a historian (and Orthodox priest) I interviewed for a 2018 column that ran with this headline: “A thousand years of Orthodox history loom over today’s Moscow-Istanbul clash.” That quote: "Kiev is the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church is Kiev." From this point of view, the churches of Ukraine and Russia are brothers, connected by centuries of shared history — good and bad — and Orthodox tradition.

The crucial issue, in many ways, is one the press seems to think is secondary — the future of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, the font of Orthodox spirituality in the Slavic world.

Let’s start with two short wire-service reports and, along the way, I will point readers to some crucial documents that add more depth and clues as to what is happening. First, from the Associated Press:

KYIV, Ukraine — The leaders of the Orthodox churches in Ukraine that were affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church have adopted measures declaring the church’s full independence and criticizing the Russian church’s leader for his support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Orthodoxy, the largest religious denomination in Ukraine, is divided between churches that had been loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate and those under a separate ecclesiastical body.

The council of the Moscow-connected body, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, on Friday said it “condemns the war as a violation of God’s commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill!’ ... and expresses disagreement with the position of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia regarding the war in Ukraine.”

It also adopted charter changes “indicating the full self-sufficiency and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

Note, in the lede, the assumption that simply saying that this has happened means that it has happened, as in the “leaders of the Orthodox churches in Ukraine that were affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church.”

Now, the official declarations (click here for details) made by the leaders of the oldest Orthodox body in Ukraine — usually called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) — are very serious and they were accompanied by changes in WORSHIP that, for the Orthodox, are even more important than words on paper.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Angels and demons: Orthodox pain woven into this year's Pascha epistles in Ukraine

, , , , ,
Angels and demons: Orthodox pain woven into this year's Pascha epistles in Ukraine

With the barrage of horrors from Ukraine, it wasn't hard to distinguish between the messages released by the Eastern Orthodox leaders of Russia and Ukraine to mark Holy Pascha, the feast known as Easter in the West.

The epistle from Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill offered hope for this life and the next. But his text contained only one possible reference to the fighting in Ukraine, which the United Nations says has claimed the lives of 3,000 civilians, at the very least.

"In the light of Pascha everything is different," wrote the patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. "We are not afraid of any mundane sorrows, afflictions and worldly troubles, and even difficult circumstances of these troubled times do not seem so important in the perspective of eternity granted unto us."

But the first lines of the message released by Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine placed this Pascha in a radically different context -- a clash between good and evil, right now. It was released on April 25th, the day after Orthodox Christians celebrated Pascha according to the ancient Julian calendar.

This letter was especially symbolic since Metropolitan Onuphry leads Ukraine's oldest Orthodox body, one with strong ties to the giant Russian Orthodox Church.

"The Lord has visited us with a special trial and sorrow this year. The forces of evil have gathered over us," he wrote. "But we neither murmur nor despair" because Pascha is "a celebration of the triumph of good over evil, truth over falsehood, light over darkness. The Resurrection of Christ is the eternal Pascha, in which Christ our Savior and Lord translated us from death to life, from hell to Paradise."

The contrast between these messages underlined a complex reality in Orthodox life after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a land cruelly oppressed by the Soviet Union, but with strong Russian roots through the "Baptism of Rus" in 988. That was when, following the conversion of Prince Vladimir, there was a mass baptism of the people of Kiev -- celebrated for a millennium as the birth of Slavic Christianity.

Metropolitan Onuphry and other Orthodox hierarchs with historic ties to Moscow have openly opposed the Russian invasion, while trying to avoid attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church. The bottom line: Leaders of ancient Orthodox churches will ultimately, at the global level, need to address these conflicts.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: The New York Times misses some key voices as Ukraine prepares for Pascha

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: The New York Times misses some key voices as Ukraine prepares for Pascha

I have said it before and I will say it again: If I could pick a major event from my life and live it over again — knowing what I know now — it would probably be the trip that I took to Moscow in 1991, arriving the week after the events that ended the Soviet Union.

There were still flowers on the sidewalks (near our hotel) where protesters were killed by Soviet tanks. There were Orthodox icons, as well. I was an evangelical Anglican, at that time, and really didn’t grasp the importance of many of the Orthodox people and places I encountered during that stay. I was there as part of the Moscow Project, an effort to help the emerging Russian Bible Society print 4 million Bibles.

One moment, in particular, was relevant to our discussion during this week’s belated “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on a New York Times report about Ukraine and tensions in global Eastern Orthodoxy heading into this weekend and the holiest day on the Christian calendar — Pascha (Easter in the West).

I was visiting with a veteran Orthodox priest who was active in the Moscow Project. We were talking about the future of Russian Orthodox Church and the realities that would shape the next few decades. This is from an “On Religion” column on the topic. He said:

It’s impossible to understand the modern Russian church … without grasping that it has four different kinds of leaders. A few Soviet-era bishops are not even Christian believers. Some are flawed believers who were lured into compromise by the KGB, but have never publicly confessed this. Some are believers who cooperated with the KGB, but have repented to groups of priests or believers. Finally, some never had to compromise.

“We have all four kinds,” this priest said. “That is our reality. We must live with it until God heals our church.”

I bring this up, of course, because of the firestorm surrounding the words and actions of Patriarch Kirill, the current leader of the Russian Orthodox Church. In KGB documents, it appears that his codename was “Mikhailov” during the years before the 1991 coup.

How would Kirill be classified, using this priest’s typology?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Ukraine war savagery will loom over this year's World Council of Churches Assembly

, , , , , , , ,
Ukraine war savagery will loom over this year's World Council of Churches Assembly

If Russian invaders continue their current aggression, how much of Ukraine will be turned to rubble and how many innocent civilians will be dead by August 31?

That's opening day for the 11th global Assembly in the 74-year history of the World Council of Churches (WCC). COVID willing, the delegates from 352 Protestant and Orthodox church bodies will be joined by thousands of observers, including Catholic and evangelical Protestant representatives.

The WCC has gotten little media ink in North America during recent times, but 2022 sparks obvious news interest in how the organization deals with the Ukraine imbroglio at the Assembly, which runs through Sept. 8 in Karlsruhe, Germany.

Media that do original international reporting and have the money should be laying plans to staff the event, which The Guy knows from covering the 1975, 1983 and 1998 Assemblies supplies numerous trend stories and features alongside the spot news. Reporters unable to attend in person should be lining up contacts to help interpret the goings-on long distance.

This is a critical moment for the WCC, Orthodoxy and global Christian unity. The Russian Orthodox Church, some of whose leaders have made public statements hacking Vladimir Putin's war, is by far the WCC's biggest member — claiming 113.5 million parishioners plus another 30 million in its Ukraine jurisdiction and with ties elsewhere. That compares with the WCC's reported over-all church constituency of 580 million.

On Sunday, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams all but demanded that the WCC expel the Russian Orthodox Church from membership:

“The riot act has to be read. When a church is actively supporting a war of aggression, failing to condemn nakedly obvious breaches in any kind of ethical conduct in wartime, then other churches have the right to raise the question and challenge it — to say, unless you can say something effective about this, something recognizably Christian, we have to look again at your membership.”

Also last week, Bishop Rob Schenck of America's Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute in Washington, D.C., took to Religion News Service to promote a Ukraine petition campaign. It urges the WCC to expel the Russian Orthodox from membership over Moscow Patriarch Kirill's "unholy compact" with Russian dictator Putin.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

No longer a Ukraine news sidebar: Pope Francis asks if combat can ever be moral

, , , , , , , , , ,
No longer a Ukraine news sidebar: Pope Francis asks if combat can ever be moral

As Russia's invasion sought to erase Ukraine from the map, Moscow's Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, a key ally of dictator Vladimir Putin, met via video last week with Pope Francis.

The Religion Guy had planned to propose a wartime sidebar about the theological justifications for combat that could run any time, but suddenly the theme has gained timely mainbar status.

That's because an official Vatican release reported that Francis stated this at the meeting: "There was a time, even in our churches, when people spoke of a holy war or just war. Today we cannot speak in this manner. A Christian awareness of the importance of peace has developed. Wars are always unjust, since it is the people of God who pay."

Francis' 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti declared similarly that "it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a 'just war'."

Francis deplores the bloodshed in Ukraine, but did not publicly castigate Putin or Russia by name, presumably in case a neutral papacy could help negotiate an end to the conflict. (That argument is used to explain Pope Pius XII's silence during Nazi Germany's Holocaust against European Jewry.)

Journalists can, at this point, ask several logical questions:

* Is Francis declaring dead the church's "just war" teaching, first formulated in the 5th Century by St. Augustine?

* Should 1.36 billion Catholics shift to pacifism, which excludes support for all wars?

* Is Ukraine wrong to take up arms to defend its existence as a sovereign and democratic nation?

Nearly all Christian commentators agree that Russia's aggression is evil and Ukraine's military defense against it is justified.


Please respect our Commenting Policy