Time of Confessors: Why we mustn’t silently watch the destruction of Church
The Church is made up of individuals. And our voice, though weak and feeble but joining hundreds of thousands of other voices, can save someone's life.
If you throw a frog into boiling water, it will immediately jump out. But if you place it in cold water and gradually heat it up, the frog won't notice that the water is boiling, and it will end up boiling itself. The method of gradually increasing the pain threshold is also used with people. It’s politicians who especially love experimenting with this. One of the most recent examples is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Before the elections, the future President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, repeatedly stated that he disagreed with Petro Poroshenko's policy towards the Church, saying that he would remain at least neutral towards any religion, and even earlier, he joked about the Tomos (calling it a "thermos"). At the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke about the need to preserve the unity of the Ukrainian people, prevented all attempts by various politicians to "hype" on the church issue, and even thanked the UOC for humanitarian aid. But then the state policy towards the Church began to change: the authorities gradually started to "heat up the water" with one goal – to ban the UOC.
Doing this all at once is difficult. Firstly, there is dissatisfaction within the country. Secondly, there is dissatisfaction in Europe and the world. Thirdly, it is generally unclear what it will entail. Therefore, banning the UOC has to be done gradually.
To achieve this, they decided to take the tried and tested path: first, marginalize to the maximum, and then criminalize the image of the UOC in society. Hence the searches and arrests of Metropolitan Pavel and the charges against Metropolitan Jonathan. Why them? Because, unfortunately, even in the eyes of UOC believers, the claims against Metropolitan Pavel seemed "justified" (he was prepared for the role of a victim for a long time), and Metropolitan Jonathan never hid his views, so it seemed that "everything was clear" about him. Few people protested, even fewer demanded evidence, and almost no one said that the cases against the bishops were fabricated from beginning to end.
Furthermore, there were searches in UOC eparchies and bogus stories from such "journalists" as Sonya Koshkina about "pedophilia" and "pornography" among UOC hierarchs. And again, hardly anyone was particularly outraged, no one asked why the "pedophiles" were free if they were caught "red-handed", no one demanded serious evidence of the "guilt" of UOC priests and bishops. It all boiled down to wild statements about "connections" with the aggressor state while brochures were presented as arguments, which were actually planted by the law enforcers themselves.
In any case, the cases against Metropolitan Pavel or Metropolitan Jonathan had minimal signs of legality, and the trials against them were remotely similar to trials in a civilized state.
During this time, the situation regarding the UOC as a whole was also changing. So, until 2022 and at the very beginning of the Russian war against Ukraine, the "transfers" of UOC temples to the OCU were adjusted to look "legal": territorial communities were gathered, "voting" was conducted, based on which local authorities or local politicians, often with the help of the police, took over the temples. Around the middle of 2022, they decided to overlook these "formalities" and in most cases simply resorted to raiding temples by lawlessness – using bulldozers, brute physical force and no pretense of legality.
The same thing started happening to the clergy and laity of the UOC who dared to speak out against the lawlessness of the authorities. For example, if a serious investigation was conducted against Metropolitan Pavel, some charges were brought against him, the court could either release him on bail or send him to the pre-trial detention centre, in case of Orthodox journalists, they waved away all these "formalities." The journalists were arrested on trumped-up charges. For greater seriousness, they were accused of participating in organized crime groups and sent to pre-trial detention – to shut them up. The trial against Orthodox journalists turned into a farce. For example, if the prosecution side was preparing for a trial against Metropolitan Pavel, then in the case of Orthodox journalists, they were not even familiar with the materials of the case. So, in one of the recent court sessions, one of the "defendants", after reading 800 pages of his case, asked what exactly from what he had read was an offense? Instead of a clear answer, he was told that they had screenshots of a certain chat room. The investigator couldn't even answer the defense lawyer's specific question about who his client was in this correspondence. That is, he came to court to accuse someone unknown of something unknown. Why don't the investigators even bother to look at the case of the "defendant" before the court session? Because they already know in advance what the decision will be. Why bother?
In the end, the authorities realized that they could destroy the UOC with impunity – there would be no public outrage or international scandal. However, regarding the latter, it's not certain. Because when the SBU came to one of the biggest patriots within the UOC, Archpriest Mykolay Danylevych, an international scandal broke out. UOC parishes abroad came to his defense, Protestant theologians spoke out, and even on the official website of our Church, there was a repost from the UOC DECR website. This was enough for the authorities to understand – lawlessness also has its limits, and in this case, they needed to step back. This situation showed that if you speak out loudly, the power ceases to be so audacious. Then why are we silent, why is our Church silent?
Are the UOC bishops silent?
Before we try to answer the questions posed, it should be noted that the UOC bishops are not or have not been silent.
For instance, Metropolitan Pavel spoke out sharply and firmly against the authorities' decision to seize the Lavra from the UOC in spring 2022. He called the authorities' decision insane, warned of God's wrath and urged them not to commit this lawlessness.
Metropolitan Longin (Zhar) also did not remain silent about the persecutions, openly calling the persecutions against the Church a war against God, reminding that no governmental system has ever won in this war, and calling on the authorities to come to their senses.
Metropolitan Theodosiy of Cherkasy took a no less firm stance against the persecutions, comparing them to the persecutions against the Church by the Bolsheviks and urging Ukrainian politicians not to make such a mistake that history will not forgive.
Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia has repeatedly spoken out against the persecutions, constantly reminding our politicians of the existence of the Constitution, the need to adhere to democratic norms, and the freedom of speech and religion.
One can also recall the sermons by Fr Dimitriy Sydor, who called those who orchestrated persecutions against the Church "a bunch of atheists" who have no relation to the Church.
There are also a huge number of other priests and a considerable number of UOC bishops who have not been silent during this time. They spoke to their communities, in publications, on social media, and in personal meetings with those in power. But when only one person speaks out and everyone else silently agrees (ready to back down at any moment), then the effect is zero, but the harm is significant. Examples of bishops who have expressed their position are evidence of this.
On the other hand, one can speak loudly but so ambiguously that it will not influence anyone. Without specifying, without naming the persecuted or the persecutors, for example, limiting oneself to general phrases like "bishops, priests, and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are being subjected to criminal persecution on fabricated grounds. Churches and other property are being seized, and religious communities are illegally being re-registered in favour of the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine."
Bishops "are being persecuted" – this sounds too general. Are they being persecuted by themselves? By natural conditions, by the influence of solar energy, by something else? Today, to say that bishops "are being persecuted" and churches are "seized" in favour of the OCU is the same as saying in 1918 that priests are "being shot" and the relics of saints are "taken away" in favour of the workers. Who specifically is "persecuting" priests and bishops, who specifically is "seizing" churches? The truth must be voiced, and evil must be revealed to the world. Because evil fears the light, as its deeds are darkness.
How should the Church react?
If specific persecutors of the Church are not identified, if the actions that the Church qualifies as persecution are not named, if it is not said how the Church treats the persecutors, then none of them will think about repentance.
The question is different – why is that? And it's all because we, Orthodox Christians of Ukraine, look at what is happening from the perspective of "it could be worse". Although, it would seem, how could it be worse... It's like in that story when the executioner is leading two people to be shot. And one says to the other, "Listen, there are two of us and he is one. Maybe we should try to take away his rifle and run away?" The other replies, "No." "Why?" wonders the first. "I'm afraid it could be worse."
That's how it is now. The Lavra has been taken, the metropolitans are under house arrest, 1,500 churches have been seized, anyone who dares to speak out about what is happening is thrown into prison, and we remain silent. Because we're afraid it could be worse. Worse than what, being shot?
Why are the laity silent?
Fortunately, there is no execution now. At least, in some cases, they limit themselves to holding a knife to our throats, like in Vinnytsia. But if we all keep silent, there's no guarantee that the authorities won't resort to executions. Or life imprisonment. And here we go from the bishops to the people.
The people are silent. We won't delve into why they're silent now, because for many years our hierarchs have been building relationships with the authorities rather than the people, with businessmen rather than parishioners. Let's just state the fact that the people in our Church are powerless, and therefore voiceless. The people have no influence on anything happening in the Church. Bishops and priests are appointed without their consent, they are not held accountable to them, no one asks their opinion. This is not the case with other Churches. For example, right now in the Church of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, elections (!!!) are being held for a new bishop for one of the dioceses, in which the faithful are participating. Can something like this happen with us? Not now. It remains to be noted that over the years of being in the Church, we have become accustomed to hearing that "everything must be done with the blessing". And our church people will not show any initiative – there is no blessing.
Secondly, for many years we have been brought up in the paradigm that "the authorities are always right", especially the ecclesiastical authorities. But St. Theodore the Studite in its letter to Stephen the Secretary says that it is not only possible but necessary to reason with the authorities (including bishops or patriarchs). As evidence, he cites examples from the Holy Scriptures and ends with a selection of quotes from the writings of Basil the Great. For example, in the 20th word on asceticism, the saint instructs: "And the primate, if he stumbles, should be reminded by the superior members of the brotherhood." Or the words of the same St. Basil (from the 34th word on asceticism): "He who does not accept what has been approved by the superior must openly or in private make his objection to him if he has any solid ground, in accordance with the Scripture, or quietly obey his orders; if, however, he feels ashamed, let others be used as intermediaries for this." Moreover, the monks of the Studion Monastery, who disagreed with the patriarch, took for their guidance the instructions of Basil the Great, found in his moral rules: "Those who have been instructed in the writings should test what the teachers say." And also "the superior should do and say everything with caution, after much testing, with the aim of pleasing God, as subject to testing by the very entrusted to him." Those entrusted to the superior are the ordinary believers. And they are not a voiceless herd but a part of the Church of Christ. Furthermore, in the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs", the people are called the body of the Church and the keeper of faith: "We have the very body of the Church, that is, the people, who always desire to preserve their faith unchanged and in accordance with the faith of their fathers." And throughout history, the people have repeatedly stood against heresies, schisms, or the wrong thoughts of bishops. Similarly, the people have countless times stood up in defence of bishops and priests, preventing the authorities from taking action against them.
The authorities always fear "the street", they fear the voice of the people. And if the people remain silent, then lawlessness is committed. Therefore, when we hear that the bishops should speak up, we must always respond – the people should speak up too. Even before the bishops. Because if our God is our Father, and the Church is our Mother, do we really need a command to speak up in their defence?
Who should be protected?
Yes, we can say that neither God nor the Church needs our defence. But the Church is made up of individuals who need to be protected. And our voice, even if it is weak and feeble, but joining hundreds of thousands of other voices, can save someone's life.
Our conscience needs to be protected. Because if the Church is blasphemed in front of you and you keep silent, if someone spits on a priest or bishop and you awkwardly look away, there will come a time when your conscience will remind you of this.
After all, one should speak up at least to avoid feeling ashamed before ourselves. All of us, from the most ordinary parishioner to the highest church hierarchy, should speak up. Speak together, with one voice. Then we will not be imprisoned or arrested.
In any case, we are the Church. And we must confess Christ. Through our lives and ministry, by defending the weak and oppressed, through acts of mercy and preaching the Gospel. All of this will be our testimony of Christ. We must bear witness. Otherwise, we run the risk of hearing the words of the Lord: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father which is in heaven; and whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32-33).
Otherwise, our common silence can be taken as a sign of agreement. And that is truly frightening.
