The State Must Help Our Christians Become Truly Christian

The following is an interview with Prof. Anatoliy Kolodny, Ph.D. (Philosophy), head of the Religious Studies Department at the Institute of Philosophy of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Kolodny is known in both scholarly and religious circles as a top-ranking expert on today’s controversial variety of confessions, trends, associations, and Ukrainian problems. When he communicates with religious figures representing our historical churches, as well as with self-styled prophets of latter-day religions, his conduct is marked by courteous tolerance and scholarly interest. Over the past decade Prof. Kolodny’s department has published a sizable library of books, including monographs, encyclopedias, digests, bulletins-reference sources that are used by Prof. Kolodny’s admirers and enemies both in Ukraine and abroad. Dr. Kolodny is an active participant in the international religious studies community, and he has a number of friends and admirers among the religious activists in the Diaspora.

How has the situation changed after the presidential election in Ukraine?

Kolodny: I think it’s too early to tell. During the presidential campaign the Ukrainian churches adopted polarized stands. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC MP) actively supported the regime’s nominee, whereas most other churches publicly campaigned for fair elections, for decency, against violence. The UOC KP (Kyiv Patriarchate) apparently hoped during the campaign that a Local Church would be established in Ukraine, so they never publicly lashed out at the UOC MP, but their hopes never came true. The recent UOC MP Synod demonstrated that this church has not repented, and it has also openly demanded that the president abandon all attempts to unite the Ukrainian Orthodox community.

Do you approve of the abolition of the State Committee for Religious Affairs, which for so many years acted as a tightrope-walker balancing between the regime and religious organizations?

Kolodny: The abolition of this committee is evidence of changes in the new government’s policy. Among the reasons for its abolition was the fact that the committee failed to condemn religious figures who were actively meddling in the electoral process, that the committee never summoned a meeting of the All-Ukraine Council of Churches to condemn these political processes, mostly on the part of UOC MP (falsification of the elections, separatist efforts, and so on). All this was proof enough that the State Committee for Religious Affairs acted hand in glove with Kuchma’s regime. That’s why most religious communities support its elimination, which is only natural, considering that the committee had reduced itself to this condition.

However, the government apparatus must have an institution (most likely a department within the Justice Ministry) responsible for handling religious affairs, including the official registration of religious communities, and so on, while being careful not to interfere in their internal affairs, issuing no directives to be carried out by the churches, imposing no political slogans and declarations, as the State Committee used to do.

Moreover, the Presidential Administration is creating a group that will be responsible for religious affairs, headed by our colleague Prof. Oleksandr Sahan, Ph.D. (Philosophy). I’m sure that he will adhere to a tolerant, democratic policy of religious non-interference, precisely the kind of policy the National Academy’s Religious Studies Department at the Institute of Philosophy has followed for the past decade. Now we can hope that the church will finally be separated from the state and vice versa, as has been clearly stated by the President of Ukraine.

There is also sufficient proof that the President of Ukraine and cabinet are not banking on the establishment of a single church for Ukraine, as expected by certain church hierarchs. Ukraine is a polyconfessional country, with 51% Orthodox communities, although polls indicate 48%. Therefore, the national policy must focus on interconfessional accord and understanding. I would go even further and formulate the issue as follows: the state must help our Christians become truly Christian, because at present those Christians who are outside the official church are not de facto Christian. On the other hand, Jesus Christ teaches us to love one’s neighbor as well as one’s enemy. Now what do we see in the present — day religious world-hatred, malice, treachery, even in relations among those who pledge real love for our Lord. Can these people be truly called Christians? I believe that the new Ukrainian national policy will be directed at “Christianizing” Christians.

What is your position on the judicial role in settling conflicts between the state and church, and between separate churches, particularly when dealing with property issues?

Kolodny: I think that events will take their due course, as has been practiced in the West over the years. Every such dispute must be brought to the court rather than decided behind closed doors.

Lately it has become fashionable in Ukraine to demonstrate one’s faith in public. We know that the chairman of the State Committee for Religions Affairs would even make the Sign of the Cross before calling an interconfessional meeting to order — despite the fact that there were Muslims, Jews, and other believers among the participants (by the way, this public gesture only served to dampen the chairman’s trust in the eyes of the religious communities). What is your opinion? Do people who hold important bureaucratic posts, living in a multiconfessional country, have a right to do this? Where does this clericalism come from?

Kolodny: The Day recently carried a feature written by French President Jacques Chirac, entitled “Secularism: the Founding Principle of the Republic.” The author opines that freedom of conscience can be guaranteed only by state secularism. I’ve just browsed through the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience” and I see that it indeed confirms Ukraine’s secularism; the very fact that “freedom of conscience,” rather than freedom of confession, is set forth is ample evidence that believers as well as non-believers have equal rights in this country.

Nevertheless, various kinds of religious beliefs are in vogue, although this trend can never be described as one aimed at spiritual rebirth. Statistics show that Ukraine’s religious affiliations are growing numerically rather than qualitatively — including notions such as decency, friendliness, and charity. The number has risen numerically, as we have 29,000 religious organizations. But how many true believers do we have? Polls show that we have about 70%, but only 5-6% of those truly govern their actions according to the faith and conscientiously carry out their religious commandments (skeptics will say that the percentage is actually as low as 2-3%). Patriarch Filaret once said that there is a new, “transitional” kind of believers, people who go to church twice in their life; the first time is when they are baptized, and the second time to be seen off on the last road. People also often go to church for purely pragmatic reasons. For example, affiliation with the (Protestant) Church may often assure a free education, or courses in foreign languages, or trips abroad. Today’s young people, including genuine believers, are increasingly less rooted in the religious ritual per se, and it is the Orthodox Church that suffers most because of this.

As for the state bureaucrats playing up to religion, or rather believers, I think this will have a negative impact on the activity of both sides, because faith, adherence to a certain concrete confession, is a bureaucrat’s personal affair, which he has no right to demonstrate to people. Recall the strange sight of the President of Ukraine making the rounds of churches belonging to several Christian confessions (excluding the Protestant Church), instead of attending a divine service celebrated in accordance with his own religion, as a member of his congregation. Everybody understands that this was playing up to the public, a photo opportunity, a game that, among other things, interferes with normal church proceedings.

Moreover, I didn’t accept what took place at St. Sophia’s Cathedral, with several representatives of Christian confessions blessing the newly elected President of Ukraine. Personally I’d prefer a situation in which President Viktor Yushchenko would receive blessings from a clergyman representing his own church. But this kind of “universal” blessing gives rise to numerous questions and even collisions. For example, who was supposed to represent the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which is currently made up of several irreconcilable parts? Why was there only one representative from the Baptists, when there are several branches of this confession in Ukraine? The leaders of the Jewish and Moslem communities were dissatisfied, as they had received no official invitations to the ceremony. This and other things add up to the fact that the ceremony at St. Sophia’s was further proof of the inequality of churches and confessions in Ukraine.

What is your stand on religious training in Ukraine? Do our children have to study God’s Law or Christian ethics in grade schools?

Kolodny: The Ukrainian law reads that our state-controlled system of education is separate from the Church, and it is secular by nature. What are we seeing now? Energetic efforts are being made by churches to use the state and its funds in order to assert their system of religious education. And they appear to be totally ignorant of the fact that our schools enroll children whose parents belong to different religions and confessions; that among our school children are those who come from agnostic families. In other words, a certain confession is being imposed on our children, who are even being divided into “believers” and “outcasts.” This is none other than a form of proselytism, which is expressly condemned by the churches. As for Christian ethics, many Christians don’t agree with this subject being added to the grade school curriculum. For example, Baptists, other Protestants, also Jews are against it. Some agnostics are also opposed to the idea. Grade schools must have a course in general ethics, including the moral principles of all religions.

The law doesn’t rule out spiritual education, but it says that it is necessary to “establish institutions of learning or study groups for religious children.” The way it’s practiced by the Jews; they have schools for teaching the Torah as well as secular disciplines. There is no doubt that having clergymen conduct classes in grade schools is against the law.

It’s also worth remembering that Europe recently adopted a constitution that mentions Christianity (despite the pitched and lasting debate on the matter). It emphasizes that the European Union is a secular entity, and that it regards Ukraine as a secular state.

Do you expect the UOC MP to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections? Will its social/public strategy and tactic change?

Kolodny: We are witnessing plans being implemented in order to use the church now — on the part of the Communist Party (as evidenced by Comrade Symonenko’s statements) and the Party of Regions (this party has declared its support for the UOC MP). Metropolitan Agatangel of Odesa and Izmail and his retinue (e.g., Yedinoye Otechestvo) are known to have called for “counteraction.” Nothing has changed, really, all the more so as the metropolitanate didn’t respond in any positive way to what was happening during the presidential campaign, when every effort was being made to falsify the turnout in support of Viktor Yushchenko. The UOC MP Synod should have publicly denounced the political efforts of some of its hierarchs (regardless of who politically supported whom), including individual parish priests and bishops, also monasteries, convents, and temples. Instead, there was silence indicative of consent to all those unlawful acts. Not surprisingly, secular church-related communities are being actively formed in eastern Ukraine, urging Viktor Yanukovych to take the lead.

Bearing all this in mind, I believe that the state is in its right to bring to account certain church “politicians” for their actions that are contrary to the laws of Ukraine, especially considering that these laws make it clear that the church must have nothing to do with politics. Many people could be made legally answerable also for having openly and brutally offended presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko as an individual. Alas, it appears that the whole affair is being soft-pedaled by the state apparatus. We are bringing up this issue; we want some of those religious hierarchs raised on the imperial tradition to resign. There are healthy forces capable of radically changing the modus operandi of the UOC MP leadership, in which case settling the issue of [Ukrainian] Orthodox unity would be considerably easier.

How many UOC MP bishops (39 in all) do you think have a profound acceptance of the Ukrainian national idea and would not be against the idea of a Ukrainian Local Church?

Kolodny: Few, I guess. You know as well as I do the kind of cadre policy being implemented by the Moscow Patriarchate: Russian bishops are sent to Ukraine and their Ukrainian counterparts are sent to Russia or other republics. Therefore, it is simply impossible to expect any different responses from the Russian Metropolitan Agatangel or Archbishop Yonafan. Some have proven to be turncoats indeed, acting as Ukrainian law-abiding nationals while writing incredible things in Moscow- based publications.

Would you please comment on Ukrainian Orthodoxy’s involvement in the world’s religious life?

Kolodny: The current situation in the Ukrainian Orthodox community is such that our churches can never take part in any international religious organizations, symposiums, conferences, and so on. Any UOC MP bishop that travels abroad does so only as a member of a delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church — Ukraine isn’t even mentioned. We aren’t present there; no one knows that we exist — and this considering that ours is the largest Eastern Orthodox Church, boasting over a thousand years of history.

It’s very important to have the independent Ukrainian Orthodox churches constantly represented at international institutions that deal with religious affairs. We are now working (within the framework of the Ukrainian Association of Religious Experts) on such representation (Eastern Orthodox and other confessions) for the next Parliament of the World’s Religions that will take place in Montreal. We hope to attend it as a numerically strong organization, so that the world can learn more about us through our churches.