Hryts’ Six Theses

By Volodymyr Kish

I have been much troubled this past month by the escalating controversy over what transpired during the visit of Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kyiv Patriarch Filaret to Canada recently.  As I have written in previous columns, the treatment of his visit by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (UOCC) and Metropolitan Yurij left much to be desired both from a political as well as a religious standpoint.

Although I am not surprised by the criticism that followed, what has raised my eyebrows more than a little is the fact that there is now a significant movement within the Ukrainian Orthodox community here in Canada to reject the current “canonical” relationship the UOCC has with the Patriarch of Constantinople which is at the root of the issue, and to replace it with a formal affiliation with the “non-canonical” Kyiv Patriarchate.  Needless to say, this implies a de facto vote of non-confidence in the leadership of Metropolitan Yurij.  This has reached the stage where meetings are even being organized by the dismayed and disgruntled to discuss such an option.

As usual when I am troubled by weighty matters, I turned to my cousin Hryts from Pidkamin for his sometimes eccentric, but always insightful analysis of all things spiritual and political.

I explained the whole sorry state of affairs and asked him for his take on the situation.

He contemplated things for a while before answering, his cerebral ponderings interrupted from time to time by the odd grunt and occasional chuckle.

“It’s all quite clear, really,” he finally responded, “though no less tragic for the fact.  It all goes back to the same problem that faced Christianity at the very beginning, and that is the essential conflict between the spiritual and political realities of any established religion.  Let me offer you Hryts’ Six Theses for dealing with organized religion.  I know Martin Luther had 95 theses, but those Germans always have tended to over-complicate things.”

“One,” he continued, “a church’s primary purpose should be to teach, guide, support, help, serve, love and forgive rather than to direct, judge, control, restrict, condemn or regulate.”

“Two – mixing religion and politics is dangerous and damaging to both.  When political and religious authorities become too closely intertwined and dependent on each other, inevitably both wind up losing their credibility and moral authority.” 

“Three - traditions and historical precedents should not trump truth, justice and common sense.  Human beings, including church leaders, are fallible and subject to errors and moral lapses.  The unbroken chain of “apostolic succession” in the various streams of Christianity has had in its ranks individuals of more than dubious character, whose behaviour by modern legal standards would be judged as criminal.”

 “Four,” he went on, “Canonicity is a bureaucratic concept created by church leaders to maintain and perpetuate the control of their churches and to exclude competition.  It has little relevancy to actual spiritual beliefs.  It is strictly a political tool. I’m sure that God is more concerned with what a person believes and how he or she lives than whether he or she goes to a ‘canonical’ church, or whether they are Catholic or Orthodox, or which particular rituals they follow.”

“Five – religious leaders should stick with their area of God given competence which is guidance in spiritual matters, and should eschew directing their flocks in more secular matters of politics, science, education or culture. By all means they should provide the faithful with advice, and the moral and spiritual tools to help them make the right decisions in their lives, but they should not make those decisions for them.”

“Lastly, six – a good Christian should show welcome, love and compassion for every fellow human being regardless of their race, creed, colour, status or past.”

“Well, well!” I responded after pondering for a moment the import of what I had just heard. “I can’t argue with what you said; it sounds eminently reasonable.  However, I must ask you as to what you would have done if you were in Metropolitan Yurij’s shoes and Patriarch Filaret came calling?”

“Why that is simple, my young turnip!” he exclaimed.  “I would have invited him in for a glass or two of fine sacramental wine and had a good discussion with him on the trials and tribulations of being a church leader!”