US Institute of Peace by Something Original, creative commons attribution share alike license 3.0 courtesy of Wikmedia.

The US Institute of Peace proclaims:

A war marked by the evidence of Russian forces’ extreme brutalities has caught Ukraine’s churches in a tense division inflamed by extreme emotions. In local confrontations, communities have seized a number of churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), the branch with historical ties to Russia. As the Russian church and its primate, Patriarch Kirill, openly backed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a stream of parishes and priests left the UOC; finally, in May 2022, the UOC leadership declared its own independence from Moscow’s authority.

The Orthodox Christian world is riven by a similar divide over Russia’s invasion. The Russian Orthodox Church, with 100 million adherents, nearly 40 percent of world Orthodoxy, has long been the wealthiest and most powerful of the 15 co-equal churches that through the 20th century formed the Orthodox communion. But the issue of Ukraine has split global Orthodoxy. Last year, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, declared that the Russian church “cooperated in the crime of aggression and shared the responsibility for the resulting crimes, like the shocking abduction of the Ukrainian children.” Kirill’s leadership had sought “to theologically legitimize criminal behavior,” Bartholomew said. As ecumenical patriarch and archbishop of Constantinople, the ancient seat of the Eastern Roman Empire, Bartholomew wields authority as a “first among equals” — alongside Kirill and other church primates within the Orthodox communion.

The Greek, Romanian and Georgian church hierarchies have joined Bartholomew and Ukrainians in criticizing Russia’s assault. But the Bulgarian and Serbian Orthodox churches, and those of Jerusalem and Antioch (based in Syria) abstained from citing Russia as the aggressor in the war.

…

Ukrainians face an excruciating task — to balance their legitimate and acute national security concerns with their need, also acute, to sustain respect for human rights, including religious freedom. A vital step is to dial down the temperatures of the political climate around Ukraine’s Orthodox crisis to create space for the two churches to begin exploring constructive coexistence. Recent hopeful signs suggest that some OCU and UOC leaders are open to seeking possibilities for a shared future despite the hardline positions and rhetoric of their leaderships. It remains unclear whether such an effort could build momentum toward unity. Also, advocates of reconciliation within the two churches likely have in mind a cautious, incremental process over years. But the environment of an active war demands resolution today. This difference between “church time” and “political time” complicates any dialogue effort.

Still, achieving this task would advance peace in Ukraine, Europe and the world. For Ukraine, a process of de-confliction and unification would strengthen the religious foundations for post-war stability and democracy. It would reduce the scope for divisive accusations of collaboration with Russia directed against those who may have had their religious roots in the formerly Moscow-guided UOC. It would reduce opportunities for Russia’s government to generate conflict or violence in Ukraine. Perhaps most importantly, it would pave the way for Ukraine’s religious sector to play a significant role in national recovery, as well as to begin healing broader divisions within global Orthodoxy.

Glory to Ukraine!