Each church eaches God following its own path

The Department of Religious Studies at the Hryhoriy Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences was founded 15 years ago. Those were the years when not only Ukraine was being formed but also its free religious life. In those days spontaneous, tempestuous, almost uncontrolled and unplanned religious processes began to emerge, fraught with interreligious and interconfessional confrontations and breaches of the peace (graphically demonstrated by the so-called Great White Brotherhood and brotherhoods that were formed in some other churches).

I believe that the Department of Religious Studies has played an important role in preserving religious peace. In the early years of Ukrainian independence it was probably the only institution collecting unbiased religious information, analyzing it objectively, and offering it to anyone who wanted it: the State Committee on Religious Affairs, churches, scholars, etc. Today, the department has amassed so much data on religious life in Ukraine that it provides documentation for the most sophisticated analyses and prognostications. Below is an interview with Anatoliy KOLODNY, Ph.D., the long-term head of the Department of Religious Studies.

Dr. Kolodny, would you please tell us about your institution, the focus of your work, and your colleagues?

A.K.: The Department of Religious Studies (DRS) is an autonomous unit of the Institute of Philosophy. It has been working since July 1, 1991. The DRS has an academic council, postgraduate and doctoral courses, and a specialized academic council (for dissertation defenses). The staff includes 10 Ph.D.s, 6 Doctors of Science, and 8 honorary research associates from Ukraine and abroad. Sixteen researchers aren’t much by Soviet standards, but Western research institutions appear to have precisely such compact teams.

In addition, we have attracted a considerable number of experts from across Ukraine to our research and founded the Ukrainian Association of Religious Scholars. The association is comprised of 18 centers staffed by representatives of institutions of higher learning where Religious Studies are a mandatory subject. These centers have a certain specialization, and this allows us to embrace a vast field of research, which is discussed at scholarly conferences. The DRS is a collective member of the International Association for the Study of Religion, the International Association for the History of Religions, etc. In 15 years of active research we have had a number of opportunities to meet foreign colleagues during conferences in Kyiv and during visits to our colleagues in the East and West, at their invitation.

It should be noted that our studies are currently focused on Ukrainian aspects. Unfortunately, we can’t deal with religious process elsewhere in the world — and not just because of lack of funds-mostly because we are preoccupied with Ukraine, what with the constant conflicts, new churches, new processes. We must prepare expert findings and documents for various official institutions, analyze interchurch relationships and their impact on society, draw public attention to various phenomena, and churches in Ukraine and abroad. For example, we are taking care of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church abroad, which is in decline and should receive assistance from Ukraine.

Also, we record neighboring countries’ hostile encroachments on borderland Ukrainian parishes in order to join them to their church (I am referring in particular to the Romanian Orthodox Church) and to alert the Ukrainian authorities. Meanwhile, new churches continue to spring up in Ukraine, and this always entails the preparation of scholarly findings required by various state bodies.

Does Russia have an institution like the DRS?

A.K.: Yes. There is a small department of five staffers at the Institute of Philosophy. We maintain scholarly contacts with them and Lomonosov University’s Chair of Religious Studies. During a recent meeting we heard the following words from our Moscow colleagues: “You can learn quite a bit from those khokhols!”

What is the reputation of the Ukrainian clergy in the world system of religious studies?

A.K.: Without exaggerating I can state that we at the Department of Religious Studies have become the world representatives of religions in Ukraine. The thing is that Ukrainian churches, regardless of their confession or “canonicity,” have no access abroad and are not represented anywhere. Not so long ago we attended a world religious forum in Barcelona that attracted 7,000 participants, among them people representing religions from every continent. That was quite a sight! It was like a huge flowerbed, people of various races dressed in national or sacral attire, all smiling and friendly. But our Ukrainian clergymen prefer to sit at home, shut away from the rest of the world.

Some Ukrainian clergymen and church-related media openly condemn the DRS, regarding it as a hangover of the old regime. Why this negative attitude to your work?

A.K.: Probably because we profess pluralism, an equal attitude to all religions and confessions, while every religion claims it is the only true one. We are convinced that every religion, every church, reaches God by following its own path. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is especially irked by our studies and findings. This is understandable because they want society and the state to support only one church rooted in canonical Orthodoxy. We adhere to the principle that all churches in Ukraine must be studied, be they Orthodox, Baptist, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, and many others, including the notorious Maria Devi Christos. This is our duty as scholars.

A number of churches do not spurn cooperation; they take part in our workshop conferences; they are willing to supply us with archival documents relating to their church history, and so on. Sometimes we help churches in dire straits by providing recommendations; we dig up precedents and forward explanations and pertinent information to government agencies. All told, we are on more or less friendly terms with almost all the churches in Ukraine, except the UOC (MP). With all due respect to Orthodoxy, we do not endorse the fact that the UOC (MP) does not serve Ukraine; this is especially true of all those Orthodox brotherhoods with their anti-Ukrainian religious processions. By the way, I think that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church should also organize such movements, ones with a diametrically opposing objective: to protect Ukraine’s interests.

How do you manage to keep track of changes on Ukraine’s church map? Where do you obtain your information, considering the number of religions, churches, and confessions in Ukraine?

A.K.: Well, it’s a rather difficult task indeed because the religious world keeps changing, it’s constantly in motion. The DRS subscribes to over 80 Ukrainian religious periodicals. Several dozen others are sent by churches and Ukrainian citizens. You won’t find such a collection even at the Vernadsky Library.

The DRS’s dynamic publishing activities are common knowledge and the list of your published works is very impressive. Could you tell our readers a bit about some of these publications?

A.K.: Recently we drew up a list of our scholarly publications of the last 10 years, categorizing them as General Religious Studies (15 works), Ethnology of Religion (6), Christianity (55), Confessions of Ukraine Library (5), Ukrainian Religious Thought (6) Free Religious Life (25). We have also published 100 monographs, over 500 scholarly articles, dictionaries, encyclopedias, the 10-volume History of Religion in Ukraine (six volumes have appeared), college textbooks, including The Foundations of Religious Studies (2006), and many others.

What are your immediate publishing plans?

A.K.: Our next project is the Ukrainian Encyclopedia of Religious Studies, and we’re looking for sponsors at home and abroad. As usual, our books are much more important abroad, while wealthy Ukrainians at home are not interested — or rather, they are too stingy. Meanwhile our monographs, dictionaries, mini-libraries, periodicals, and publications add up to a sizable collection, which has formed the basis for Kyiv’s first public Religious Studies Library.

What teaching methods do you use?

A.K.: I teach Religious Studies at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and try to make extensive use of practical methods. I suggest that students actually explore churches and mosques and visit religious communities when they’re working on their essays and term papers, so that they can observe and study the practice of divine services, rites, congregations, and so on. This fieldwork results in serious papers on religion. It is also important for religious studies as an information-gathering process, which is particularly crucial with respect to the so-called modern churches.

How is the language problem being resolved on the level of churches in Ukraine?

A.K.: Not only is this problem not being resolved in the ecclesiastical milieu, it is continuing, and the Russian language reigns supreme everywhere — with the exception of the Greek Catholics and among some Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The main reason is the absence of a general educational linguistic foundation. This concerns not only the Ukrainian language but those languages that are crucial to traditional theology: Church Slavonic (the Ukrainian version), Greek, and Latin — everything that an old classical education once provided. This, of course, affects the quality of scholarly work, sermons, monographs, and so on. It’s a shame when people graduate from university and begin their scholarly work as postgraduate students knowing only one language. Remember how many languages students of the old Kyiv-Mohyla Academy had to learn?

What are your forecasts for the future of the Ukrainian Orthodox churches?

A.K.: There is little optimism. Let’s face it: the Orthodox churches can hardly be expected to unite in the near future. One of the essential reasons is the absence of unity in our Orthodox churches. They all rely on the monarchial principle: only the hierarchy has a voice, word, opinion or rather, the sole head of the church. All three churches lead a life that is completely isolated from the rest of the world; they never step foot in the international arena, as though Ukraine were not an independent country. When we propose to either of the Orthodox churches to join our delegation attending a conference abroad on church matters, the response is always negative.

All told, the prospects look grim, all the more so as it is so clearly apparent when observed from the outside. Our Orthodox heads make no arrangements for training successors. True, the head of the UOC (MP) needn’t worry, the Moscow Patriarchate will find a suitable replacement, of course, but one is loath to assume that they are also planning one for the Kyiv Patriarchate.

For a number of years we’ve heard about the development and ratification of a new law on freedom of conscience in Ukraine. What’s your attitude to the old law? Is it really necessary to replace it?

A.K.: This is a complex and important question. It should be remembered that the law on freedom of conscience and religious organizations (1991), which is still in effect, despite all its shortcomings and subsequent failed amendments, is recognized by international experts as one of the world’s most democratic laws. Yet this does not mean that it is free of serious drawbacks that provoke constant attempts to replace or seriously amend it.

What do I personally dislike about this law? I dislike many things. In the first place, this law is one-sided. It describes the right to form religious communities and their activities in detail, but there is not a single word about punishment for breaches of these communities’ constitutional rights. The law does not clearly define the concept of church, nor does it specify the responsibility of its leadership for its normal functioning. Also, the law provides for separation of the church from the state, but does not grant the church the status of a legal entity.

While declaring freedom of conscience, the existing law does not provide for rights and opportunities for nonbelievers — and they constitute 25-30 percent of the population. The law does not take into account the fact that separation of the church from the state does not mean its [the church’s] separation from society. Therefore, it does not stipulate the legal possibilities of the church in the social environment. Another important omission is that the law cautions against animosity between religious organizations but says nothing about punishment to be meted out to those who incite interconfessional animosity on religious grounds. This list could be longer. Therefore, I think this law should be revised and amended. I am sure that this would be better than adopting an entirely new law.