Ukraine Persists

 I do not think I make enough of Ukraine standing up to Russia. Therefore, let me direct you to “Remember Also Me: A Mosaic of Interviews from Ukraine, [part two]” by Laura Swart from Another Chicago Magazine. Just go and read them.

I joined the Eastern Orthodox Church while in prison. I have had to contend with people not understanding why I would do such a thing, to some thinking I joined a cult rather than the oldest version of Christianity. Ukraine and Russia are both Orthodox countries. This has caused problems, consternation, and pain in the church,

 Saviors on Weapon Boards Two Kinds of Social Ethos during Wartime by Lidiya Lozova from Public Orthodoxy might be a stretch for some, but please give it a try, and also to follow the links contained therein:

Leaving this question open, I suggest that the two icons quoted above correspond to the two kinds of social ethos embodied in documents that have appeared in the Orthodox church in the 21st century: the Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000 (SC) and For the Life of the World: Towards the Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church of 2020 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (FLOW). SC shows an overall pessimistic attitude towards the sinful human nature and human ability to transform the world; focuses on Christian values and cultivation of the Orthodox society with the help of state; and is formulated as a top-bottom church instruction on dealing with secular threats. In its “War and peace” section, the church is encouraged to cooperate with the Armed forces, and people are called to spare their lives when protecting the fatherland. It approves of just war and cites examples of saints who blessed their flock for war as a way of salvation. Nothing is mentioned of the need of repentance and healing of war traumas for those who took part in hostilities. The ethos of SC is in tune with the Savior from the military cathedral.

On the contrary, FLOW shows a participatory attitude of the church towards the world and its history, does not oppose church and society, strives to be contextual and dialogical, and uses compassionate language. In “War, peace and violence” part it condemns violence as such, admits the right for self-defense and the need to protect the vulnerable by force as a tragic necessity of the world wounded by sin, but denies the “just war theory” in Orthodoxy and strives for future healing of the parties involved, including the military, and focuses on increasing peace efforts. Klymenko’s Savior is created in the spirit of FLOW.

Discussing the two Saviors, I attempted to point to the importance of the socioethical implications of icons in the war through coherent examples. I do not want to claim, however, that all modern Russian iconographers share the ethos of the SC and support the war, while all Ukrainian icons are created in the spirit of FLOW. While SC is the official document of the Russian Orthodox Church, it also serves as the social doctrine of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church still associated with the Moscow Patriarchate. Meanwhile, although FLOW is not an officially accepted document in Ukraine,  its 2020 publication has been met with support and enthusiasm, especially in the OCU. But the actual situation with modern icons and their social ethos is more complicated, especially if one considers examples of the new iconography with references to war which have recently appeared in Ukraine—a topic that needs a separate consideration.

---

Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.

sch 3/3