Рождество и мы. Мысли о Нем и о нас

• 23 декабря, 2015
• Статьи

Последнее Рождество

«Это Рождество может быть последним». Этими словами папа Франциск не сказал ничего сенсационного, лишь напомнил о милосердном долготерпении Божьем, которое тянулось до наших дней, достигло, спасло и хранило нас, но на нас же может оборваться. Все в человеке протестует против этой мысли о конце. Только не на нас, только не при нас. Но в этом состоит важный урок, который наконец стоит усвоить: нужно жить так, словно это день — последний; нужно праздновать так, словно следующий раз будем праздновать за одним столом с Богом

В защиту детей и «детского» Рождества

Христос говорил: «Пустите детей приходить ко мне, не препятствуйте им…». Пусть дети приходят к Богу как могут, по-детски. Их воображение и доверие — начало веры.
Тот, кто не может представить ликующих ангелов, вряд ли способен почувствовать Бога. Почему же мы запрещаем верить в рождественские чудеса и требуем взрослого, холодно-деловитого отношения к величайшему празднику? Почему лишаем детства и того доброго, что с ним связано — наивной веры в добро и чудо? Почему делаем с раннего детства материалистами, убиваем воображение и веру? 
Не будем слишком строги и рациональны. Даже апостол Павел, наибольший богослов из апостолов, говорит о Воплощении как о «великой тайне» (1 Тим. 3:16), непрозрачной для требовательного разума и дерзкого взгляда. Возможно, нам самим стоит стать детьми хотя бы на время праздника, чтобы вновь научиться верить и радоваться

Мать и Младенец

В дни Адвента стоит подумать о Матери Иисуса. Примечательно, что роль Марии куда ярче роли Иосифа. Последний всегда молчит и, покорно служит. А Мария слушает, слагает слова в сердце, распоряжается, беспокоится, страдает, вынашивает и сопровождает. В смиренных мужчинах и любящих женщинах славится Бог Воплощенный. Здесь нет места «традиционным ценностям» маскулинности и домостроевской патриархальности… Здесь все место занято Христом. Прекрасно сказал папа Франциск: «Мария умеет преобразить пещеру для скота в дом для Иисуса: потребуется немного скромных пеленок и целое море нежности. Внимательная подруга, Она всегда следит, чтобы не кончилось вино в нашей жизни. Сердце Ее пронзено мечом и вмещает в себя все скорби. Она – знак надежды для народов, терпящих родовые муки, пока не прорастет справедливость. В Ней мы видим, что смирение и нежность – добродетели не слабых, а сильных, которым нет нужды обижать других, чтобы почувствовать себя значимыми».

Украинский протестантизм в системе общественно-политических координат

• 16 декабря, 2015
• Статьи

risu.org.ua

Система координат, в которой находит и определяет себя украинский протестантизм, задается двумя осями: горизонтальной осью церковно-общественных связей и вертикальной осью государственно-конфессиональных отношений. Вертикаль знакома и привычна, за нее удобно держаться, но сегодня основные процессы разворачиваются вдоль горизонтали. Будущее Украины определяется тем, сумеет ли формирующееся гражданское общество заземлить государственную вертикаль, соединить то и дело отрывающуюся власть с ее источником – народом, увязать ее с нуждами, требованиями и ценностями обычных людей. То же самое можно сказать и о церкви, особенно о церкви протестантской, демонстративно подчеркивающей свою «народность».

Стоит признать, что сами протестанты тяготеют к активной общественной работе при скептично-пассивной лояльности в отношении к государству.

При этом в отношениях с обществом они подчеркивают свою субъектность и не спешат видеть ее в самом обществе. Это одна из причин того, что отношения остаются односторонними, несмотря на открытость и даже инициативность со стороны формирующегося гражданского общества.

В то же время в отношениях с государством протестанты отрицают собственную субъектность, т.е. охотно уступают инициативу и довольствуются признанием, не требуя взамен почти ничего, разве что скидок на оплату коммунальных услуг, уступок по части военной повинности и защиты так называемых «традиционных ценностей».

Мне кажется, что в условиях острого спроса на реформы в государственных структурах и постреволюционной активности гражданского общества, протестантские церкви должны проявить больше инициативы и принципиальности в отношении к государству, а в отношении к обществу — больше внимания и уважения, признания и принятия.

Между тем именно вертикаль остается главной осью общественно-политической и даже общественно-церковной жизни. Некоторые протестантские епископы известны тем, что не удостаивают паству своим присутствием целыми месяцами, поскольку всерьез считают, что их уровень – не общинный, а политический. Именно поэтому встреча с представителями власти или место в ВРЦиРО ценятся куда больше, чем живое взаимодействие с общинами.

Можно сказать даже больше – коммуникация между церковным руководством и рядовыми верующими почти отсутствует. И это не отдельный случай, а правило. Епископ может явиться на пасторскую конференцию и показаться за кафедрой, наставляя, обличая и требовательно спрашивая. Но задать ему вопрос или пообщаться лично будет сложно, реального контакта с ним нет. Даже посещая общины, руководство имеет целью не столько услышать о реальном положении дел, сколько проконтролировать ситуацию и утвердить свою власть. В результате церковные союзы живут в пространстве, похожем на средневековое, когда регионы на словах признают власть старшего киевского епископа, нехотя принимают, когда он объезжает владения, выплачивают необходимые взносы, но не более того. Влияние центральной власти часто ограничивается стенами центрального офиса. Поэтому большинство церковных союзов сохраняет слабую версию вертикали (вертикаль личной лояльности), опасаясь регионального сепаратизма.

Персональный капитал связей, авторитета, влияния предстоятеля никак не конвертируется в связи, авторитет и влияние всей церкви, т.е. всего сложносоставного церковного тела. По сути, имеет место даже не система государственно-конфессиональных отношений, а конъюнктура моментов, определяемая личными отношениями влиятельных представителей церковного и государственного истеблишмента.

То, что стало общим симптомом для протестантских (и не только) церквей Украины можно назвать кризисом общинности, т.е. кризисом общинной субъектности. Есть административная вертикаль, есть подобие иерархии, но очень слабы горизонтальные связи, «взаимоскрепляющие связи» между верующими, их совместные инициативы, обратная связь со священнослужителями, чувство общности, причастности, ответственности.

Помимо внутренних, церковных причин, этот кризис можно считать частью общей, характерной для Украины проблемы – неразвитости низовых коллективных форм общественной самоорганизации. Так все говорят о государстве, и лишь немногие знают, что (где-то!) должно быть и гражданское общество. Так и в церкви: все говорят о власти и собственности, и лишь немногие вздыхают по общинности. И здесь, и там, нет понимания, что общество это мы, что община это мы, что государство – наше, что церковь – наша.

Казалось бы, протестантизм должен отличаться демократизмом, развитой общинностью, наличием живых обратных связей, но, к большому сожалению, и он ориентируется на модели командно-административные, ярко представленные государством и титульными конфессиями. Здесь стоит признать: партнерство с государством и огосударствленными конфессиями сыграло с протестантами злую шутку. Вместо того, чтобы привнести в государственно-конфессиональные, межконфессиональные и общественно-церковные отношения свою пресловутую протестантскую простоту, непосредственность, даже некий радикализм, протестантские церкви удобно устроились за общим столом, не задавая лишних вопросов.

Мандат от «власти», ссылки на связи и разрешения «сверху» никак не заменят живых горизонтальных связей с живыми людьми и целевыми группами. А могут даже повредить. Так в зоне АТО можно видеть растущее раздражение от бравых протестантских капелланов, которых «сверху» «приказали» принимать. Так церковь приобретает влияние, но не свойственное ей. При этом в глазах общества оказывается в компании власть имущих, эффективных и влиятельных, не брезгующих успеха ради коррупционными схемами и «договорняками».

Формирующееся гражданское общество обретает свою субъектность и видит в государстве отнюдь не самодостаточную силу. В свою очередь, этот запрос оказывает давление и на церковь, в которой «светское» гражданское общество видит не только и не столько епископат (аналог государственной власти), но общину, сообщество людей, объединенных добровольно общими ценностями и общим видением (церковный аналог гражданского общества).

В силу своей историко-культурной и богословской специфики, именно протестантизм может подходящей религиозной средой, где данный запрос на активацию общинности, церковной демократии, «церковно-гражданского общества» встретит понимание, сочувствие и воплощение.

Восстанавливая и развивая демократические начала в церковной жизни, протестантизм обретает необходимую субъектность в диалоге с гражданским обществом и партнерских отношениях государством. Сегодня мы фиксируем этот тренд, равно как и многочисленные рецидивы, откаты к советским моделям внутри- и внешнецерковных отношений. Будут ли успешны протестантские церкви в развитии собственных «церковно-гражданских обществ»? Это зависит от того, сохранится ли восходящий тренд в развитии гражданского общества в стране, сохранится ли вопрошающее и требовательное давление снизу, от людей гражданских, рядовых. Церковная общинность и гражданское общество – сообщающиеся сосуды. Хотя, если смотреть правде в глаза, придется признать: судьба гражданского общества в целом зависит от развития церковно-гражданского общества гораздо сильнее. Поэтому церкви в ответе не только за себя, за свой имидж в обществе и статус в отношениях с государством. Их внутренние процессы, их самоопределение становятся критическим фактором для выживания государства и гражданского общества.

The Ukrainian Exodus

• 15 декабря, 2015
• Статьи

Religion, State, Society, and Identity in Transition Ukraine. Rob Van Der Laarse, Mykhailo N. Cherenkov, Tetiana Mykhalchuk and Vitaliy V. Proshak, eds. 2015

On the background of the Eurasian crisis of ‘historical’ and ‘political’, Maidan could be considered in light of religious-theological dimension, i.e as a socio-theological phenomenon and as a subject of political theology. Considering the social/ public inquiries to Church and to ‘revolution of dignity’, the Ukrainian perspective of ‘liberation theology’ becomes of an importance. Ukrainian identity after the Maidan opens itself for (self-) reevaluation and rejuvenation of its combining elements. The Christian tradition, rethinking itself within the frames of political theology, could be an influential factor and symbolic resource for formation of Ukrainian nation and development of civil society in the epoch after the Maidan.
First references to theologico-political understanding of Maidan as an actual event of ‘liberation’ could be found in the texts of representatives of various Christian confessions in Ukraine. At this, it could refer not just to national liberation, but to ecclesiastic liberation as well – it could imply the beginning of the new relations for Church and society and state, and the more active and freedom-giving role of Church in the formation of the nation. The anterior thought is taken as an initial for following considerations: theology, that sets to focus on Maidan as the subject of its consideration, inevitably reconsiders itself in light of its subject. The aim of this article is to demonstrate how theology of Maidan becomes a political theology and Maidan becomes a theological event, how Church and civil society are meeting each other on Maidan (this meeting has actually happened in the winter events of 2013-2014, but should also happen in the theological aspect) and rethinking their alliance.
For theologians, the Maidan events have already become a part of the history – but not as a something from the past, but as something which gives the beginning of the future. At the same time, Maidan becomes a symbol of liberation from the history, from quarrels with history, from its ‘imperial’ version, and a symbol of the determined choice in favor of the other version of the history which is not successive from objective cause-effect reasons, but which takes its liberty with boldness by will, by heroic acts, by faith, by prayer.
This symbol of political and cultural liberation ascends to religious symbolism. First of all, it reminds the Exodus – as a prototype of awakening, liberation, (re-)birth.
Exodus is an unexpected breach in history, which is a miracle in itself, a miracle of a birth of a new inside of itself, and reveals in itself even a bigger miracle – the saving action of God in history, His plan concerning the empire and the nation enslaved. In spite of the fact that Exodus remains to be a part of history, it opens new dimensions, gives new ways to understand the history not from the perspective of enslaved, but from the perspective of free, of liberated. Exodus offers historical perspective, destructive to imperial statics, offers to see a historical movement, a way from slavery to the Promised Land.
With this, it is interesting to point out that Ukraine, being a partaker of Christian cultural areal, during the years of Russian imperialistic and then Soviet and neo-Soviet colonization politics, have lost the connection and the legacy of the Judeo-Christian narrative of Exodus. In other words, the story of Exodus was not considered as actual for Ukrainian history and was not regarded as real, applicable, and/ or possible. Till recent time, the Biblical narrative and political history seemed to be incompatible. Not just the society, but also Ukrainian Churches thought of themselves as part of political order, taking reference in “how it always used to be” and not in alternative version of history, focusing on what God has done with pharaoh and what He can to today and always.
Contemporary Ukraine trans-passes through such a dramatic period that there are only two options left – either the downfall of the independent state and life in the shadow of the empire or the new life. However, life, and even more, the new life, is not produced politically. The birth and the rebirth are always a mystery, a mercy, and a miracle of God. Empires are built by people while alternative history is written by God.
In this case, it is impossible to do without theology and is necessary to listen to this alternative version of political history which is offered by theologians – Walter Bruegemann and Wolfhart Pannenberg.
“What if Exodus — is a primarily cry which gave beginning to all history? (Translation from Russian)”, — asks Old Testament theologian Bruegemann. And he replies: “The history of Israel starts at the day when this nation stops to call out to Egyptian gods who do not hear him and cannot answer him. For them, it is the beginning of the life in freedom and independence when they decide to call out for liberty to the God of freedom and step forward against the governing regime”.
The processes of decolonization, of liberation from imperial heritage, of birth and formation of a nation could be understood and described in theological language – with application of its images and cognitive optics.
In this perspective, revolution on Maidan appears to be not a social revolution, but, par excellence, a spiritual revolution. Not by accident it is called a ‘revolution of dignity’ – it touches the spiritual foundation of society and personality and not only the questions of civilized choice or disapproval of antinational government. As it is known, socio-cultural Euromaidan came to its end on November 30, 2014 – with dispersal of students demonstration. The Spiritual ‘Maidan’ commenced on the same day under the bell-ringing of the Mikhailovsky Sobor. From that day the initiative came to the hands of the Church.
From analytics we have now only a canvas of events and their socio-political interpretations, and almost all of them consider the role of the religious factor as influential. Even the ideologists of Eurasianness see in the Maidan the revolution of dignity– the revolution of Uniats, sectants, and religious dissidents against the Russian Orthodox World, i.e. even in the anti-Maidan analytics, the Church factors gets high considerations. The credit, given to Church by Ukrainian sociologists, is even higher (and positive):
In the events of Maidan, the Church has actually taken the side of the Ukrainian society which dared to mass organize for the civil protest actions. In its entire, the Church has strongly condemned the application of force against the peaceful Maidan. Monasteries and Cathedrals in Kyiv have given shelter, protection and help to the participants of protests. In time of open confrontations priests have stood up as live shield between sides of conflict calling the security service officers not to follow the criminal orders and not to apply weapons against civil persons. (Translation from Russian)
For the Church itself this revolution happened to be unexpected and not-looked for. However, after the period of the seventy-years of secularization, the Church was eagerly searching the way back to the society and was demonstrating its importance to the society through its relations with the state. Only in time of Maidan the Church has met with society and rediscovered itself, its place in serving its own people.
Many years sociologists and theologians were speaking about significant spiritual potential of Ukraine – and for its own rejuvenation and for revival of Europe. But this potential was actualized only in the events of Maidan. Maidan became the place of the reawakening of Kyivan Christianity as original national form of inter-confessional Christian solidarity. On the background of Maidan events and the following after aggression of the Russian Federation, the questions of canonical ecclesiastic origin became not important for Church and for society; ecumenism became factual and the further development of ecumenism will not be founded on the canonical origin, but on the precedent of who was where at the time of Maidan and who have done what. It could also be mentioned that in the atmosphere of the social extreme, the question of canonical origin became irritating; a new, eager social inquiry has appeared for a Church that is alive, and trustworthy, and in solidarity with the people and not for a Church that is canonical only.
In time of Maidan, national and spiritual identity has become free once again. Ukrainian identity of traditional interpretation composed of Kyivan Russ, Cossakdom and orthodoxy is not relevant anymore. There is a demand for Christianity, but for new type of Christianity, for Christianity of the national character, of pro-European in its direction, and for Christianity which embraces diverse Ukrainian society. Church still has a chance to become a part of a new appearing identity; it could not be achieved through its place in the history, but only through an active role in the formation of the new image of the state and nation.
Maidan became a point of no return, a decisive break through with imperial past – Soviet former ideology of ‘brotherhood nations’ and orthodox ‘Russian world’. Twenty-three years after the downfall of the USSR the metaphor of Exodus has become relevant once more. Discussions about national theology of liberation, earlier carried out in the narrow circle of Latin American experts, have become public themes and even a common language of the wide circle of participants of ‘revolution of dignity’.
Did the participants of Maidan understand the spiritual character of the events happening? Don’t think so. The work of understanding and explaining the theological analysis of ‘Ukrainian Exodus’ is the responsibility of the Church. Liberty and dignity – are foundational Biblical themes and fundamental Christian values. The name of “revolution of dignity” has significant spiritual symbolism in itself. To recognize these religious implications in the Maidan events is the task of theology, both social and political.
In its turn, social political theology could lean on Biblical theology, on the example of Old Testament history-writers in particular. As it is mentioned by Wolfhart Pannenberg: “Self-revelation of God, according to Biblical testimony, was fulfilled not directly, not via theophany, but indirectly, via history events… Not only separate events, but all constellation of Exodus events and conquer of land could be considered as self-revelation of JHW (translation from Russian)”. With this historicity of revelation, the ‘eschatological quality of the present’ must not be lost since it combines the times and reveals their common plan.
Thus, for theologian, Maidan is measured and understood as revelation of God in public events and, at the same time, as eschatological symbol of realized end, as a judgment of the world and of the Church.
In accordance to this, Maidan opened many negative peculiarities of Ukrainian Christianity and pronounced its public verdict to it. Ukrainian Christianity never justified the Exodus; conversely, it was a part of the Imperial system of enslavement. Its natural place of dwelling was Egypt and not the Promised Land. In understanding of Ukrainians, Christianity is fulfilled in Church hierarchy, and hierarchy is a priesthood that uses the people instead of serving the people. The attributes of spiritual relations in the Empire were priests and Tsars, but not the prophets and nation. Meanwhile, if to appeal to the story of Biblical Exodus, it should be acknowledged: not tsars and not priests, but prophets were the avant-garde of liberation.
Remembering the story of Exodus and applying it to the history of Ukraine, several explanations of the events happening now could be offered and some lessons could be learned. Here are some of them mentioned below.
The way to freedom is long and arduous, and Ukraine is only on the middle of this way. Israel was on the way to freedom for forty years, Ukraine is only twenty-three years now.
On the way to the Promised Land, the nation has had many moments of recedes of slaves’ conscience, of grumbles and riots, of attempts to comeback when the memory of Egypt has plays a trick and revived the image of the past. For the itinerant in the desert, the life in slavery seemed to be appealing and the way back to Egypt shorter than the way to Kannan. The Soviet people, remembering the cheap sausage, produce the archetypes of the slaves’ conscience: “We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!” (Numbers 11:5-6).
For yesterday’s slaves, the low conscience, the absence of initiative, inclination to paternalism, and desire of ‘a strong hand’ is typical. To this passivity of nation corresponds the special role of the leader, Moses. For this reason, the people on the Maidan often interrupted the speakers demanding: “We need leader!”
At the same time, the most significant achievement during the forty years of wandering in the desert was not the acquirement of the strong leader, but the acquirement of the Ten Commandments. On the place of the human authority, idealized as much as criticized, comes the law. The obligatoriness, inviolability, objectivity, and sanctity of law are interconnected with its divine origin. The God himself transposes the law to Moses, thus the Moses becomes just a mediator, the servant for God and for the people.
The law becomes a form of a covenant between God and people, the condition of their survival in the wilderness and subsequent wellbeing. This law would have no power if not the faith in God. In the desert the nation finds God and the faith in him.
Certainly, the people had faith also in Egypt, but it was propitiatory faith, faith giving hope for future in time of desperation. In the desert the faith was active, leading, and victorious. This faith was not looking back, but was anticipating and foreseeing the future, including the future in the Promised Land.
The Israeli writer David Grossman was born and raised in Israel and, reading Exodus, he could not stop wondering why till this moment it is being spoken about the ‘Promised Land’:
Thus, for some reason it is not the ‘land promised before’, or ‘the land of promise’, but land which is still promised, as this promise, even after the return of the nation to Sinai, is not fulfilled yet and the nation has not yet realized its full potential. As if in Israel, till this time, even after fifty-years of the founding of the state, still exists the bewitch “generation of wilderness” deprived of rights and privileges. This “eternal promise” carries in itself a hope for development, for a potentially unlimited freedom-thinking, for consolidation of flexible prospects in relation to what is still continues to be numbed, hardened. However, the shadow of “eternal curse” is inevitably rests on this promise, it is a hidden, deeply rooted feeling of inability to someday realize personal potential and direct personal strength for fundamental decisions of self-identification, of belonging to a particular territory. (Translated from Russian)
Thus, alike the Jewish people, the Ukrainian people commence the Exudes towards public independence, even while still forming their identity. The interpretation of Maidan in light of the Exodus forms the fundamentals of Ukrainian political theology that offers the perspective of Church on the events, but also the perspective on Church in lights of the events. In other words, the Church is being liberated for more responsible and unifying ministry to its own people, for spiritual leadership on the journey through wilderness. Precisely in this way the future history is seen by leading theologians of Ukrainian denominations. According to archiepiscopate of UGCC Sviatoslav Shevtchuk:
On the duration of the nine months Ukrainians are on the complicated journey from post-Soviet fear to freedom and to God-given dignity. Being traumatized by World Wars of the twentieth century, by brown and red totalitarianisms and genocides, they want to build a fair society and democratic European future. All Churches and religious organizations of Ukraine spoke in unity against the violence of Yanukovych regime, of annexation of Crimea and division of the country. On the Maidan, months by months, hour by hour and even at nights in unifying prayer people stood up for respect of the citizen’s rights, for non-violence, unity of the state, and dialogue. This civil ecumenical and interreligious harmony and cooperation became the source of moral inspiration and public consolidation in Ukraine. (Translation form Russian)
These ecumenism and solidarity with people were perceived in orthodox Russia as a threat to its imperial influences.
In the recent documentation, prepared in Moscow in the highest circles, and especially in the letters sent to the leaders of the Orthodox churches, the slander is included in reference to Greek Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox of Kievan Patriarchate who are pejoratively called uniates and schismatics. They are reckoned as being responsible for the military conflict in Eastern Ukraine and are being accused in unleashing the war and, especially, in violence against the orthodox clerics and parishioners who suffer in the results of the course of the war operations. Russian orthodox leaders disseminate the slander against the Greek Catholics and other confessions, thus, creating a threat from the side of the militant separatists who identify themselves as warriors of Russian Orthodoxy. (Translation form Russian)
For national Churches, the Exodus is interpreted as a breach from the Pharaoh and his empire, but also as reconsideration of all relationships with authority that is inherited from Egypt and has penetrated the various aspects of life, including religion.
In the light of theological critics, governments are deprived of their sacredness and obedience to governments becomes of a conditional character. At the high point of the events, pondering on the theme “Would God bless the solution-by-power character of Maidan?”, fr. Petro Baloh has concluded “…not yet, but might be…” inviting by his abstract answer to rethink the bilateral character of relations between society and government, especially in light of the following points of the Catholic catechesis: “Catechism affirms that citizens should look at authorities as representatives of God, who keep order and punish the evil and urges citizens to be loyal to the government and cooperate with it. However, «their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community” (CCC, 2238).
Already in the first days of the Maidan, theologians saw it as a symbol of defiance of political power over religious, of state power over civil power. In line with desacralization of power, an Orthodox theologian Cyril Hovorun proposes to develop the Ukrainian version of ‘political theology’ designed to reconsider the relationship of the Church, state and society after the Soviet experiment — repression, famine, atheism, and Russification. The turning point in the history of these relations was Maidan:
After the state had driven the Church away from itself, the latter withdrew into her ghetto and patiently waited for recognition. When she was recognized after the fall of the communist regime, first of all the Church has started to develop a relationship with the state, rather than to engage in building links with the society. In fact, the post- Soviet society was also not very aware of its separation from the state subjectivity. And now, on the Maidan, we are seeing a striking example of public becoming aware of their own own subjectivity… This society identifies itself on the foundation of common values, i.e. dignity, honesty, non-violence, solidarity, mutual readiness for self-sacrifice. In such a pure form, civil society does not even exist in Europe, where people are united mainly by their common interests. (Translation form Russian)
Becoming liberated for independent life, civil society has become an example for the Church, and perhaps a rival claim to moral leadership. According to observations of Hovorun, society, which appears in the results of the Maidan events, overgrows the Europe and Church – the exact reference group to which it tried to align itself:
Ukrainian Maidan, meeting ‘for Europe’, has significantly outgrown Europe itself and its politicians. Ever more, Maidan, in its valuable components, has considerably overgrown and Ukrainian Church as well … Only in the last days of Maidan, Ukrainian church began to catch up to the level of moral consciousness and responsibility which were expressed by Maidan. (Translation form Russian)
The thought of Orthodox theologian is quite radical: Ukrainian Maidan has showed more of Christianity than the politicized Ukrainian churches; it has showed bigger potential of civil solidarity based on Christian values than the old postmodern Europe.
Maidan has helped the Church to rise up and change. Socio- political events have forced to rethink the social and political theology. A similar process has happened in the history of Protestant churches in Germany as well.
Yes, Maidan gave impetus to the churches to rise above the status quo that prevailed in their relations with the state in all years of independence of Ukraine and to take the side of society. For Ukrainian churches, now is the opportunity to get out of the gray zone of collaboration with criminal authorities and to take the path of ‘confessional Church’, which spoke against Nazism in the Nazi Germany. (Translation form Russian)
In particular, Hovorun proposes to revise the political and metaphysical dualism and to confess the full lordship of Christ, also including in politics: «These ideas of theologians, such as Barth and Bonhoeffer, are fully applicable to what is happening in Ukraine now”.
Certainly, in line with the political theology of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (and especially John Howard Yoder), the revision of dualism does not mean the politicization of religion, on the contrary – it is an interpretation and implementation of its own exclusive vocation, which relates primarily to the public, and not to the state.
While sociologists speak of the return of religion into politics (Yelensky, The Great Return, 2013), the Ukrainian theologians prefer to talk about the return of the church into society:
Now, the Ukrainian churches have the opportunity to rise to the level of society, which quickly grows on the basis of the values that would have to be demonstrated by the church. It is the time to change the relationship with the government. It is the time to build relationships with people and to learn from them how to appreciate and defend dignity, decency, humanity. (Translation form Russian)
Going back to society, the Church should not enter it with its own statutes, but, on the contrary, the church should learn from the society. In the era after the Maidan, the modest compliance with the general rules of civil society is expected from the Church.
Noteworthy, in this matter theologians are self-critical, but optimistic. The Church is not yet a civil society institution; she didn’t take her place and does not play its role. Rather, in the events of the Maidan the Church has got a chance to do it, the Church has got a credit of trust from the society. With the use of the theological language, the present state of the Church in society can be described as ‘already and not yet’.
The thoughts of pastor Mykola Romaniuk are applicable in this case:
The Church is now becoming an institution of civil society, and, last but not least – it happens under the influence of Maidan. Unfortunately, in the Ukrainian society the influence of the Church is mainly determined by its religious activity. Maidan was the first event in the time of Ukrainian independence when the church broke out of this vicious circle. And this is a problem and the Church as well. During the thousand-year history, the Church has not become a vital part of the organic society, especially in comparison with the role that the church plays in our neighboring states — Poland or Germany. A possible future influence of the churches is being born today; it begins with the spiritual-educational service and continues in the socio-charitable sector. Church becomes a mediator and, eventually, when its role will shift from culto-ritual to a more significant factor of charity and education, a prophetic voice that will indicate the direction and denounce the negative side of all spheres of Ukrainian society — from local communities to political communities. (Translation form Russian)
And this ‘alteration’, transposition from internal activities of the Church to the activities of the civic engagement, is expected from the Church by the segment of society that is associated with Maidan.
Ukrainian sociologists suggest that the active position of the Church on Maidan was stimulated by the presence of the corresponding public demand: «According to the results of sociological research, the vast majority (74%) of Ukrainian citizens are convinced that» the Church must always stand on the side of the people and protect them from the arbitrary power» and only 7 % believe that » in the political processes Church should above all protect the government, because there is no authority that is not from God».
It is remarkable that the «public demand for Church interference in the internal socio-political conflict is not as obvious as it was during the events on the Maidan, where citizens openly opposed to the despotism of authorities. Thus, almost half (48%) of Ukrainians believe that ‘the Church should do pastoral-mentoring activities and should not interfere in civil-political problems and processes’. A different opinion — that ‘the Church is an institution of civil society and should play an active role in the socio-political processes’ — is hold by 39% of the respondents. In this case, this proportion is even lower in the east of the country — 30 %, while the limitation of the activities of the Church to pastoral-mentoring aspect is supported by 54% of the respondents.» And on the background of these overall figures and their regional spread, the cautious estimations of theologians become clearer and look fairly balanced.
So, not only Ukraine as a state has escaped from the power of the empire, not only civil society has realized its disconnectedness from the state, but also the Church has experienced its own liberation – liberation from limitations in the cult-religious sphere, from marginalization in society, from depending on the state.
In general, Ukraine after the Maidan has found itself being in the desert. As noted by Pastor Sergey Golovin, «The exultation of Exodus has passed. It is the time for a long and arduous march through the desert». And here the Church must remind people about faith, which does not see the Promised Land yet, but already decides to break away from the usual slavery, listening to the prophet and relying on God’s promise. And that exactly about this faith, and not about the unsteadiness and unbelief, is the legendary poem Moses by Ivan Franko, it’s about this faith are the keywords of Ukrainian poet-Moses: «I believe in the power of your spirit and in the day of resurrection, [a day] of your uprising.” (Translation form Ukrainian)
Perception of Maidan as the subject of political theology makes it possible to re-interpret the known political events into the unknown to a wider audience (and to the majority of civil society, as well as to the majority of the church community) process of liberation from Soviet imperial heritage and versions of post- neo-Soviet forms of colonialism. Theological view comprehends the hidden dimensions of this process, notes that the events of Maidan were much more than just an obvious victory for civil society over the criminal regime of president Yanukovych. These tragic events have become the birth place of the Ukrainian nation as a subject of both political and spiritual life, being able to make free and responsible choices. These events were the birth of a new form of religion, which can be conditionally called civil or national church — not due to the titles or the historical merits, but on the basis of the role, importance, and influence on the shaping the nation and its spiritual development. All of these provide a wealth of material for the emerging Ukrainian political theology. In its turn, political theology can become a new orienting and explanatory paradigm for relations between state, Church and society in the era of ‘after the Maidan’.

Светлого Рождества!

• 12 декабря, 2015
• Статьи

Вокруг то и дело мы слышим слова: «Счастливого Рождества!». Все это так, но что такое счастье? О каком счастье мы думаем, когда желаем здоровья алкоголику, удачи вору, безнаказанности убийце, беспечной и легкой жизни среди войн и военных слухов? Я предпочитаю желать не счастья, а света. Пусть наши праздники будут не шумными, а светлыми; не веселыми, а радостными. Вот и сейчас я говорю: «Светлого Рождества!».
Есть ли что-то, что говорит о Боге без слов, что связано не с объяснением, а с переживанием, не с понятием, а с явлением? Есть. Это свет.
«Бог есть свет», говорит апостол Иоанн (1 Иоан. 1:5, здесь и далее в переводе РБО, 2015). Там где Бог, там всегда светло. Светло не только от праздничных свечей и гирлянд, но от Его присутствия.
Рождество – особенно светлый праздник. Первые свидетели Иисусова рождения – пастухи и звездочеты — столкнулись с необычным, небесным, божественным светом, и потом, в этом свете, смогли понять происходящее и встретиться с Богом.
«Неподалеку от тех мест были пастухи, они жили в поле и сторожили ночью на пастбище стадо. Перед ними предстал ангел Господень, и сияние Славы Господней озарило их. Их охватил великий страх. Но ангел сказал им: «Не бойтесь! Я несу вам радостную весть – великую радость для всего народа. Сегодня в городе Давида родился ваш Спаситель – Помазанник, Господь!» (Луки 2:8-11).
Мы пастухи в ночи. Костра нам не хватает. Мы боимся того, что прячется во тьме. Мы боимся ночи и дня. Потому что день не светлее ночи, все та же неизвестность и безнадежность.
Мы пасем себя и скот, немногочисленный и тощий. Мы пастухи, пугающиеся света, и не способные спасти даже себя. Мы овцы, не имеющие Пастыря.
Ни костры, ни лампы не дают того света, который осветил бы нашу жизнь и показал нам ее смысл, прогнал тьму из наших сердец и закоулков разума. «Мы во свете Твоем увидим свет», пел царь Давид (Пс. 35:10). Т.е. только в свете Божьего присутствия мы способны что-то увидеть и что-то понять. Вне Рождества история мира и наша личная судьба покрыты мраком. Рождество — «луч света в темном царстве», звездная дорожка к Богу и яркой полноте реальности.
«И вот после того как в иудейском городе Вифлееме, при царе Ироде, родился Иисус, в Иерусалим явились с востока звездочеты. «Где новорожденный царь иудеев? – спрашивали они. – Мы видели, как взошла Его звезда, и пришли воздать Ему почести… И вдруг звезда, восход которой они видели, стала двигаться перед ними, пока не остановилась над тем местом, где был ребенок. Когда они увидели звезду, они очень сильно обрадовались. Войдя в дом, они увидели ребенка и Марию, Его мать, и, встав на колени, склонились перед Ним ниц» (Матф. 2: 2-3, 9-11).
Пастухам явились ангелы – светлые и светящиеся Божьи слуги. А звездочеты увидели Звезду. Свет выражает себя по-разному, но это один и тот же Свет. Одни верят чудеса и видят их. Другие ищут объяснения и находят звезду.
Бог открывается простым людям и людям ученым. Его свет доступен всем, кто имеет глаза, чтобы видеть, кто держит их открытыми, кто ищет, стучит, просит.
Пусть Свет Рождества осияет нас, пусть в этом свете мы увидим себя настоящими, пусть мы увидим Иисуса вблизи.
Пусть во свете рождественской звезды мы ясно увидим свое призвание в этом мире, Божью волю о нашей жизни, перспективы миссии, ответственность Церкви.
Пусть мы станем теми пастухами и звездочетами, которые понесут весть о светлом событии дальше – в свои семьи, села и города, народы и культуры, учебные аудитории и профессиональные сообщества, чтобы света стало больше и больше, чтобы ярко светили свечи, лампы и маяки; чтобы люди видели свет и шли на него; чтобы «народ, живущий во тьме, увидел великий свет. Для тех, кто жил под сенью смертной, свет воссиял» (Матф. 4:16).
Пусть пройдет страх, отступит ночь.
Пусть настанет та великая Радость, которую обещали ангелы всем людям, а значит – и нам.
Пусть мир наполнится Светом!
Светлого Рождества!

RELIGION WAS A PEACEMAKER DURING MAIDAN AND BECAME A MOBILIZER IN WAR TIME

• 7 декабря, 2015
• Статьи

MYKHAILO CHERENKOV: RELIGION WAS A PEACEMAKER DURING MAIDAN AND BECAME A MOBILIZER IN WAR TIME

Interviewed by Tetiana KALENYCHENKO

http://risu.org.ua

On November 21, 2013, the first Euromaidan broke out and nobody could predict further developments. Churches and religious organizations became part of social change. According to experts, the population sis still living in a nineteenth-century paradigm, and we cannot assert that ecumenism has reigned after the revolution in Ukraine. Professor of Ukrainian Catholic University, Protestant theologian Ph.D. Mykhailo Cherenkov shared his vision of these years’ dynamics and the way that can give a new impetus to the religious environment.
— In what way had the religious environment changed after Maidan and before the war?
— In this case, the qualitative changes that are scarcely distinguishable shall be identified. One can focus on speeches of the church spokespersons and their official statements or one can grasp the popular sentiment. I will rely on the latter. If we take a look at the polls, their representativeness remains mostly questionable. I think that the religious environment is now in a state of extraordinary confusion. Even in the early days of Maidan, as it turned out, the churches were unprepared to meet the challenges but were confused. Neither today they have definite answers, but hope that the “war action will show.”
The religious environment lacks a developed capacity for reflection. If the Churches are not ready to systematically respond to all challenges even now, during the revolution it was even more difficult: they were not ready to respond quickly even to current issues. This includes working with the flock and interacting with society. That is, there is no mechanism which would allow the churches to respond with their integral body, collegially, and only then involve powerful intellectual, spiritual, social forces to solve problems. This collegial dimension does not exist. In the stead of it, there are bishops whose mostly personal positions hardly conform with the sentiment of religious communities.
Accordingly, there are positions of church primates, separate speakers, who were delegated, or people who were simply thrown to the surface of publicity by a twist of history. The latter seems more interesting. It is worth mentioning Father George Kovalenko (UOC), who is currently not authorized to represent the Church, but is respected in the public space as a worthy representative of the denomination. The religious communities have no shared coherent position.

Therefore, there is a growing dissatisfaction of the laity and clergy with the fact that no one asks how they evaluate the changes, what the Church should be like now and how to respond to the social challenges of war, what the conflict mean s for Christian unity. Instead, there are bishops, who usurped the main levers of ecclesiastical authority, and overall community, who are living on their own. Ordinary believers participate in the community life as volunteers, pray, collect assistance and do not know how their church perceives it. The blessing of a bishop, too respectable to be accessible, is of little value now. People get organized by themselves, almost spontaneously.
I am mostly talking about the UOC (MP), for it is now at the crossroads of complex issues and responsible decisions, but the same refers to the UOC-KP. There is an exemplary position of the Patriarch, but there is an abyss between him and the community life. How one can possibly overcome it, how to engage people in active life or shared activities? Therefore the main criticisms towards the Kyiv Patriarchate is that it is a personal Church of Filaret, and if he is excluded, no one knows what the Church will be like and where it will move. Indeed, the developments have shown the lack of church collegiality. The challenges are so serious and radical that the Church cannot meet them relying solely on the employees of several offices. The Church has to rely on his entire church body, use its hands and head, and tongue, and heart. Therefore today it is disoriented and individual voices – either worthy or not – are uncoordinated. And this, I think, poses the greatest danger for the Church. If the pipe produces a weird sound, no one will know what to get ready for. Incomprehensible sounds, uncoordinated actions, lack of collegial mechanisms.
— During Maidan very often the rhetoric of true ecumenism was heard. Can we observe it now? What are the prospects of dynamics of this gap between leaders and laity?
— The gap or mismatched positions, parallel lives of the bishops and community may result in prospective emergence of dual power. There are authorized spokespersons or representatives, and there are people whom community or church life has pushed to the microphone. And they will work, and their opinions will become more influential. When people are disappointed in the senior hierarchs, then they say, “what is sacred in this body?” They will start building alternative structures. And they have been already formed in a network-type horizontal structure.
There is a better perspective when the church leadership openly admits lack of collegiality. If they understand that the Church will die without it, then they will find the mechanisms of activation or even resuscitation of the collective life. They do not need to invent anything, just replicate it from history. They can be found in the early church history, on the pages of the Acts. Then the reformation may take place in the Church, and it will become a collective entity. We will not repeat some not very smart sayings that there is no church without the bishop. But we will say that there is no bishop without the church, without its sound and active life there will be no sound spiritual leadership. Then the mutual appeal of the church as a community can foster activation of the church life. This is what the UOC and ROC are afraid of. If social life grows active, then people will say — who is Kirill? If he infringes the Gospel commandments, whether we have to honor him? Then all these structures will be shaken. This is a chance to revive the authentic church network. The church is primarily a community, the community of the people faithful to Christ and not to the bishop. The intertwined relations between Christians are crucial as this is the way the Church is being built.
Maidan showed that there is no ideological core, and now the Churches are thinking how and around what they rally.
I think that today we have to look at Maidan as there are hidden impulses whose effect persists. If people have already united, they are difficult to separate. They have had a genuine experience, and they will focus on it. Another thing is whether it remains somewhere in reserve, or the church will intensify it, as it is a powerful mechanism for influencing society and, at the same time, for church renewal.
Today, in a sense, ecumenism is not topical for churches because they take care of its internal situation. Maidan showed that there is no ideological core, and now the Church start how and around what they rally. This is the issue of unification and identity. And when it escalates, then ecumenism weakens. Instead, we have a common purpose and common action, a common challenge that we can respond to. At present, the practical ecumenism has moved to the East, while in the center, which is far from the reality of war, it cannot be actually felt. It cannot be called a pause or denial, but rather a time for home exercises over the ecumenical experience acquired during Maidan, which potentially has much to give to each separate denomination and to all of them together.
All denominations should think what makes us Christians, and only then how to be Orthodox, Greek Catholics or Protestants.
Will the Church be able to develop “at home” (each of them from inside) a strong identity, invulnerable to outside influences? But I worry that these “home” activities will be fruitless. Gone are the days when the identity was produced by a church in a closed mode. Now it is being formed in an open environment of ecumenism. And those who understand these things say that we should work together. All denominations should think what makes us Christians, and only then how to be Orthodox, Greek Catholics or Protestants. And the sooner they become aware of it, the sooner they solve their internal issues in ecumenical mode. In modern world it is impossible to dissociate oneself from others. But we still partially live in a nineteenth-century paradigm. We adhere to the ideas of a unified local church or a nation state, which are based on immediate and permanent dependence on ethnicity, language, religion.
Therefore, the Church continues to fight, measuring swords for title, while the world lives in the mode of instability, diversity, openness, where entirely different mechanisms of synergy operate.
— You have mentioned the new horizontal network structures – can you give any examples?
— A network structure is an association of people not on the basis of their status in the overall hierarchy, but through informal, ideological relations. Such structures are formed spontaneously, and not in administrative manner, for example, on personal ties through social networks or through volunteering. These are joint projects, in particular, theological groups, publishing houses, media resources. They unite people one the basis of their outlook that is much more relevant than the ecclesial and structural ties.
I know “our people” in every church — these are the people I consider “our” church, because I feel unity with them and authenticity of this kind of Christianity. These are people from the RCC, UGCC, UOC, UOC-KP and Protestant communities. We do not need to wait until our bishops bless the common cause. If the pressure from their side will increase, we will have recourse to some other formats of ecclesial life. No one fears anything. This creates a new system of orientation — not based on the church leadership positions but the values and principles. Thus, informal leaders live and serve within the system, but are still seeking for and creating alternatives. One can formally belong to the hierarchical system, but the lives by other things, i.e. the informal community of like-minded persons. These quiet intersections offer church people a breath of fresh air, open opportunities of a different and diverse Christianity. Without these network communities, without dialogue and cooperation with neighbors, the churches will turn into the relics of the administrative-command past.
— What are the key changes you see in the Protestant environment? The pastors divided opinion as early as during the Maidan not to mention the war and the attitude towards it. What has changed since the revolution?
— Now the things that divided us previously became common. Churches have to be socially and nationally patriotic, engaged, and responsible. There is a real war and all Christians should be at war. Someone shall serve with arms, others shall support them. But the greatest sin is indifference. And it became common for Protestants. A year ago there was a debate was whether a Christian may go to war. We have already passed a point of no return. There is also regional specificity. In the East, many people do not believe that this war is just. They find themselves hostage to the fight between Kyiv and Moscow. But the amount of these people decreases, they either deliberately stay in the area ATO or scattered and do not constitute a homogeneous mass and are subject to assimilation.
Given this experience, people look differently at Maidan. In fact, a big mistake of Donetsk churches was that they prayed for peace and unity in the church walls and not out at their own Maidan. We are responsible for what happened.
I think that the Church and with society are passing a difficult period. If there were still some hesitation during Maidan, the subsequent processes of annexation and war were became a response for the Church and a sign that it definitely has to be with people, live through this experience together with the community, live through despair and disorientation. What next? Where does our government lead us? Has everything changes? Why corruption is flourishing again? Will the war end and why they gain profit from it? The Church goes this way with no illusions together with society, including through negative emotions — confusion, anger, shame.
— If we look at the religious component of the three key events — Maidan, Crimea, ATO – how is it manifested? Was such a component present and whether it had affected the course of events?
— Speaking of the Ukrainian side, the religion was clearly and unexpectedly became the very factor a strong one, which helped. At Maidan religion allowed to keep people back from radicalization, to ensure a peaceful course of events. As for the Crimea — we have seen on Turchinov’s example that religion played a somewhat moderating role, when he did not dare to take decisive action, but moved quietly and consistently according to a plan. One might think that this plan was wrong, but I think that in other circumstances there would have been much more blood. Those beliefs that influenced Turchynov’s position prompted him such answers.
In the ATO zone, religion played a mobilizing role. In a positive sense, it “radicalized” the people. There was much panic in the corridors of power, but we saw how faith and religious affiliation mobilized the leaders, they felt responsible. That is true for Turchinov, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk. In other words, «religious affiliation», Christian faith said that we must fight, defend, not to give up. No matter how many enemies there were, we have to trust God and know that the truth is on our side. And this has motivated and united us. Faith was the cement that united, strengthened and motivated Ukrainians. This is just one factor that the Russians could not calculate. Why people do not dissolve on Maidan? Who are the chaplains and what are they for? People from the temples – what are they doing? Only believers can understand. It is not clear for nominal believers because they know that God is on the side of power. But He is on the side of truth, because truly believing people sacrificed themselves for others.

Therefore, religion has played a moderating and peacekeeping role in a certain sense, but at the same time a motivating one. To be on Maidan, to defend our values, but not by violent means. It has contributed to a relaxed attitude to the events. I think that we could lose the whole country, not just Crimea, if panic had spread. Religion became a stabilizer, so that country has not slipped into chaos. It was the factor that empowered people. If this were not the case, everything would die out in a few months – defeat under Ilovaisk, betrayal, silencing – there would be nothing to hold people back.
On the Russian side, the religion in the ROC’s version played a provoking role and legitimized aggression. It blessed a fratricidal war.
Here we can see a manifestation of aggressive religiosity. The two types, or modes of religion collided, the aggressive imperial and the national liberation type. If religion is working on the side of oppressed people, it gives power to mobilize and defend.
This will be the next step, when the faith will enable to forgive and forget something from our past. When painful memories haunt us, only faith will help us live. Faith gives strength to fight not only for the present but also to move forward. Currently there is no vision of the future, and it can be felt. Religious leaders do not see the full picture. But one day religion will become an inspirational force. Expecting this from our politicians would be too naive. There is nothing left for us but faith.

“Missiology after Maidan”: A Chance for Ukrainian Protestants

• 7 декабря, 2015
• Статьи

Maidan opened a new era in relations between Protestants and Ukrainian society. For the first time an unprecedented openness and confidence in religion were united with the highest le`vel of exactitude and seriousness. The church’s understanding of its mission in this world was modified by the events and demands of Maidan. Now there is an aspect of mutuality in relations between the Church and society. In the context of Maidan, missiology has the possibility to be holistic and actual. The Church has a unique historical chance to see society as a very active subject who is able to ask serious questions, not a passive recipient of spiritual care; to see itself as a part of current events and a servant of missio Dei, not a centre of missionary activity. This missiology overcomes ecclesio-centrism and rehabilitates the people to be co-workers in God’s mission of salvation and the establishment of His Kingdom as the highest trans-social and trans-ecclesiological reality.
Students of religion point to the appearance of a new form of religiousness called ‘civil church’. This name originates from ‘bilateral missiology’ where the Church is a part of civil society and the society sees the Church as a part of itself.
However, a number of missiological questions arise: Where was the place of the Church and Christians at Maidan and where is it now in the society after Maidan? How can Christians serve the people? What is the relation between serving God and serving people, in the context of Maidan? Is it possible to attach a dynamic character not conflict to the missiological tensions between patriotism and universalism?
Leaders of various Protestant churches have expressed their opinion about these issues. It seems that they prefer missiology not political science. Now the Protestant theologians need to build a holistic vision of ‘mission’ taking into consideration different Protestant views.
This author’s hypothesis, based on different Protestant materials and documents states that Maidan’s events gave Protestants a unique chance of socialization in Ukrainian society; Maidan gave a possibility and a right to be a part of building of a national identity, to fulfil Protestant potential in such a crucial period of time, to lay a valuable foundation for the future of the country.
The author sees his task in combining different theses, views, and opinions on these Maidan events in order to develop this vision of ‘missiology after Maidan’ which would correspond to the understanding of ‘the Church after Maidan’ and demands of ‘the society after Maidan’, accordingly.
Missiological Motives, Questions and Theses in the Context of Maidan
Missiological motives of Protestant churches of Ukraine (the majority belong to the evangelical Protestants: Baptists and (neo-)Pentecostals) dominate. These motives determine a social stand among Protestants. If the main task is a mission ‘the Great Commission’ given by Christ, then other issues are secondary. Theology, enlightenment, and charity serve or attend missiology. Under normal conditions, as a minimum, Protestants are interested in at least the freedom of the church to exist within the limits of the physical church or temple building. As a maximum they would like to have both freedom of conscience and the ability to proclaim the Gospel. In the context of Maidan, this fragmentary approach of church mission is quite problematic, inadequate, and scandalous.
An incarnational model of evangelism could be a good alternative to a social, self-sufficient, and intra-church missiology. This incarnational model implies a possibility for being put into cultural, social, and political practices.
‘Missiology after Maidan’ is only possible in incarnational options. Incarnational missiology cannot be partial, accordingly; it should be founded on the dogma of the Incarnation and integrated into social teaching, political theology, and the theology of culture.
The content and direction of missiology are connected with the issue of the essence and nature of Christianity; an understanding of mission follows from the theology of salvation, the Church, and eschatology. Roman Nosach argues these issues in his article ‘Ukrainskiy razlom’,
Some people see their life after conversion as forced waiting for either the Coming of Christ or their own death. Then a sense of earthly life is to evangelize as many people as possible. The Church is a prototype of a ship or an ark sailing the sea of evil and death. It is most important to keep the ship, fill it with passengers, and reach the final destination. Other people consider the Church’s destination is to be the light and salt in this world. They think the Church should proclaim God’s reign in this world and the new world as well. There is a need not only to pray… but also to fight for justice.
Church discussions about Maidan’s reality have raised missiological questions. Should this mission be partial or integral, proclaimational or transformational, apolitical or politically committed, indiscriminately kind or truthful on principles, cosmopolitan or national? Should the Church have been at Maidan? Has the Church got a special mission in this context? Is there a unique chance for the Church and mission in such a critical period?
As long ago as November 28, 2013, Vyacheslav Nesteruk, the President of the All-Ukrainian Union of Associations of Evangelical Christians Baptists, said to Russian Baptist journalists that ‘we have no activity at Maidan’. Consequently, Ukrainian Baptist theologians produced an open letter,
This view simplifies the social position of Ukrainian Baptists and reduces it to extreme neutrality. The Church cannot live in some neutral zone out of society and its needs. Ukrainian Baptist churches do not call people to political demonstrations and violent actions, but encourage people to make a responsible personal choice. Ukrainian Baptist churches call people to intercession for victims, help for those who are in need, prayer for peace, truth, and prosperity of our nation. Let us call ourselves to intensify our prayers for the Ukrainian nation, to help, for God’s defense, peacemaking, and evangelism in this difficult time. We can take care of people in different ways; however, we cannot be indifferent to people’s needs.
Two missiological approaches were revealed out of this discussion. The first approach argues that the Church should be at the center; the second gives priority to Christ and teaches people to see His work and the Kingdom of God. According to the first approach, salvation can be found in the Church, so, there is a need to call people there. According to the second approach, the Church is a sign of God’s Kingdom; the Church should go to people and see the center of its activity among them not within itself. Maidan challenged the ‘missiology of the Church’ and gave stimulus to the ‘missiology of the Kingdom’.
Anatoliy Kalyuzhnyy, the leader of the Alliance of Independent Evangelical Churches, suggests the ideas of ‘missiology of the Kingdom’ by saying that Maidan’s events were the result of the work of the Holy Spirit and God’s presence among protesters. He argues,
It is a misunderstanding to wait until people will come to you. We need to go to them. The activities of Maidan and their outcome may decide the fate of the people. I am sure that the Church must be there as well. God is everywhere. However, God strongly reveals Himself where there is the spirit of love and community, hope and dream of faith which God gives. If you would like to experience special God’s presence, then go to Maidan. However, go there not for 10–15 minutes. Go there and serve: scavenge a street, encourage people, feed them, share the Gospel, pray. Jesus came into this world to serve the people. To give is more important that to take. This is our mission in this world. We need to be there. I am sure if Jesus would be physically present among us, then He will be there together with us.
Thus, waiting for people to come to the church is an ecclesio-centrist way of missiology and the movement of this mission will be centripetal. On the contrary, a missiology of the Kingdom understands the Church as a center of outgoing activity towards people and teaches us to see Divine Providence in all world events.
According to Valeriy Antonyuk, ‘We need to see God, His guidance and implementation of His plans in everything that is happening, and get added evidence that all biblical prophecies are being fulfilled in our generation.’ On the one hand, missiology ignores socio-political processes, however, on the other – it tries to recognize God’s work and the possibility of participation in that work.
Two types of missiology are different in understanding of people’s needs not only in its center and vector. The missiology of the Church puts the emphasis on only spiritual needs such as salvation. The missiology of the Kingdom integrates various needs (spiritual, personal, social, political, cultural, and economic) into a holistic concept of salvation (liberation, reconciliation, transformation, and restoration).
According to Peter Kovaliv, a Pentecostal theologian,
Salvation cannot be limited merely to outward ritualistic behavior or purely personal spiritual experiences. Salvation is restoration of the whole person and returns his life to the fullness of God’s plan for man. Every person is a social being. Therefore, his salvation is connected with his social life… and directed towards spiritual-moral changes of whole society.
According to pastor Mykola Romanyuk, Maidan became a symbol of the new missiology,
Maidan stimulated social commitment and is an inspiration to evangelize… helped the Church (the Church wanted it) to face the society. If you would like to serve people in their spiritual and physical needs, then you do not need to follow their views. All you need is just to be with society.
This thesis carries an aspect of radicalism, because mission is to be with people, to live with them, not only to call people to the Church or to serve people. The mission is not to guide, carry or call. The mission is to be the light and salt for this world.
On January 17, 2014, Protestants organized the roundtable ‘Maidan and the Church’. The roundtable passed a resolution, which declared missiological statements as well as political,
The main task of the Church is to be ‘the salt’ and ‘the light’ in this difficult time. It implies: uncompromising condemnation of every sin in spite of political position; calling both authority and nation to penance; showing people the way of salvation through Jesus Christ; helping people in their needs; and bringing hope in this world. We believe that Maidan’s events will become a starting point for revival and renewal of the whole Ukrainian society by God’s mercy, people’s prayers, and Christian work.
In that context, mission is not only repentance. Mission is linked with condemning the wrongs, helping, working, and encouraging renewal of society as well.
Grigoriy Komendant, the ex-President of the All-Ukrainian Union of Associations of Evangelical Christians Baptists, pointed out the presence of the Soviet alienation syndrome,
After the breakup of the USSR, we made a difficult decision to create independent national church unions and the Euro-Asian federation of unions. Not all people were ready for this serious step. However, it was time to make that decision. The old generation did not understand those changes. They did not understand a new concept of mission. Why? There was the Church. It was enough. Everyone had become accustomed to the Church which lived its own life. There was no need to be committed to the mission. However, a strong Church has an influence on a country. It is our hope. Now the Church cannot lapse into a cocoon of self-isolation as it did fifty years ago. There is need to create a new politico-prophetic vision and to work in it. We cannot be ‘cavemen’.
Therefore, Maidan has become a turning point where the missiology of the closed and self-sufficient Church is transforming itself into a missiology of the socially responsible and open Kingdom. In this context, every Christian, not only professional evangelists, can become an agent of mission. Grigoriy Komendant argues,
I agree that we need to expand an understanding of mission; because mission is much more than the work of some missionaries. Unfortunately, our successful politicians-Christians have rather got lost. They came into politics; however, they do not know what to do next, how to use these opportunities. Materialism has seized churches and they have become business rivals, instead of using their possibilities for an extension of Christian influence.
The post-Soviet Church did not have a missiological vision; its potential of influence was unused. Maidan became a place of a meeting of socio-active Protestants. Here an agenda of a new missiology was formed. This new missiology is sensitive to human freedom and dignity, ecumenically open, and politically responsible.
Here is the testimony of one Protestant activist Alexander Bychkov,
The event of the dispersion of Maidan was like a burial of freedom in my country. I decided that I needed to resist. I am sure that our whole life needs to be submitted to our faith; and there are no reasons to separate political and social activity from this. I think that some Christian appeals such as, ‘Let us go to Maidan and start to evangelize,’ are better than merely ignoring those events in the center of Kiev. Nevertheless, it seems quite an inadequate approach. These appeals put me off. I am glad to hear preaching bishops who always are with people and compassionate for the future of the nation.
In other words, a mission that ignores the future of the people and the country and has interest only in salvation is not ethical for ‘Protestants at Maidan’. Christian society rejected those churches which went to Maidan in order to advertise themselves and ‘preach Christ not politics’.
The center of the Protestant ‘mission’ was the Prayer Tent. However, there was not only prayer. As Anatoliy Denysenko witnessed,
Active brothers and sisters decided to worship God at cold and dangerous Maidan, instead of inside warm and safe church buildings. The Prayer Tent became a symbol of Christian social activity. Christians understood their responsibility for the country’s future. Someone was supporting these activities with finances, another was sewing sleeveless jackets with the slogan ‘Pray for Ukraine’; somebody was on duty, others were bringing food and the Bible, etc. All those who participated in church ministry at Maidan understood that a prayer should go along with actions and actions should go along with a prayer.
Those Christians were missionaries, because they responded to people’s needs in the name of Jesus Christ. First of all, there was a need for hope, God’s protection, faith in justice, and love for each other as different parts of one free nation. There also was the need for food, clothes, beds, medical aid, and physical force.
The Church faced new needs and possibilities for mission after Maidan: peacemaking work between different sides and victims of conflict. The next day after the escape of President Yanukovych, Valeriy Antonyuk appealed to Baptists by his ‘The Word of Reconciliation’,
We passed with our nation through the difficult times. We were serving people by prayer and sharing the Gospel, voluntary and medical aid, clothes and food. Now there is need for an active ministry of reconciliation which can keep our nation and country united.
On June 3, 2014, the Ukrainian Interchurch Council adopted a resolution ‘The Church in Times of Social Chaos’, which appealed for
the ministry of peacemaking … to show Christian love and mercy upon wounded people and migrants regardless of political opinions, nationality, social position, and religious convictions; to be a national conscience and prophet by calling the society to dignity, morality, peacefulness, and law-abiding actions; to evangelize and share the Gospel; to teach the principles of Christian morality and decency. The Church must support historic-cultural enlightenment among the Ukrainian population and create a list of documents of social issues in collaboration with interconfessional, state, and international organizations. This list should include: The Social Manifest of the Ukrainian Interchurch Council, The Project of National Program of Spiritual-Moral Revival of Ukrainian Society in 2015–2025.
It is notable that this resolution includes a list of various directions of mission, because without them ‘evangelism’, ‘works of mercy’, and ‘word of reconciliation’ would not be possible in order to achieve transformation of society. Moreover, there was the statement of two important documents. The first document concerns the social stand of the Church; the second one – a vision of our country’s future from the Church perspective.
Reopened prophetic-critical, socio-transformational, cultural-educational, and politico-educational functions have become a matter of many documents and statements of this new generation of Protestant theologians and writers.
According to Fedor Raychinets, the Church has a mission towards the state, not only toward society. If the Church does not perform both of these functions, then it will break its mission. He argues,
The Church needs to remind both itself and the state of God’s commandments that are higher than state laws … The Church has a responsibility to remind everyone that each and every law needs to defend God’s image and the dignity of human life, not to destroy and humiliate these images. This Church position … can both annoy the state and make the Church vulnerable … Many people think that if the Church will be closer to the state or political party, then it be more effective in its mission. However, this is a big mistake. Then the Church will lose its identity and loyalty to God’s mission. There is a confusion of loyalty.
Maidan has become an external stimulus of church liberation from forced placement inside the socio-political system and self-restrictions. The Protestant Church still is at the beginning of its Exodus. Taras Dyatlik points out that,
We were focused on preservation of the form of worship, music, and traditions. We did not understand that the Exodus changed form, style and traditions. Only God is unchangeable. We condemned those who were trying to transform some forms, music, and traditions. We seemed to think and feel that those changes were very complicated, because they raised new questions without answers. Now we are trying to get on with ‘the spiritual Pharaohs’ and ‘the spiritual Egypt’, instead of serving as a prophetic voice for them.
The Protestant publicist writes that ‘a free life with God’ liberates the Church from self-business in order to serve at the center of society. According to Oleg Turlak, Protestant churches found themselves not ready for this freedom and mission ‘without walls’. He says,
Appeals to an active participation in the life of our country and decision-making face misunderstanding and apathy, ‘What are you talking about? Is it about Maidan? Oh, no!’ Evangelical churches of the former USSR are more associated with worship services within the walls of church building then an eager activity outside of the range of the church building. The euphoria of mass evangelization in the nineties has disappeared. People thought ‘we will conquer the whole world for Christ’. Now Christians are absorbed in their church issues; they forgot of which country they are citizens. Probably, Christians feel deep apathy because of constant political, economic, and social problems. Hyper-spiritualization of biblical texts brought Christians to lose touch with reality.
Young theologians joined in the discussion of inevitable consequences for the theology of mission after Maidan. Dmytriy Byntsarovskiy suggested three important directions for possible Ukrainian ‘liberation theology’,
It is better to focus on civil society instead of poor people; the interests of civil society do not always show the interest of the whole nation; the theology of mission should remain ecclesiastical, because it cannot be out of church even for the sake of Maidan.
Alexander Bychkov tried to explain a connection between mission, church growth, and social ministry,
On the one hand, a missionary does not need to be so unselfish as to not wish for church growth. On the other, a missionary does not need to be so interested in his desire for church growth in order to make his social ministry conditional on it. If there is clearness of both purposes for him and other people, then he will be honest, unselfish, and interested also.
Protestants of Donbas, whose church buildings (orphanages and residential treatment centers as well) were occupied by terrorists and turned into their headquarters, were forced to abandon their strategies of church growth. They needed to return to a simple form of mission by practical help. According to pastor Peter Dudnik,
Christians, who are in the thick of the military events, serve people daily by sharing food, bringing medicine, and evacuating people to places where they would be safe from the bombing etc. There is not only merely the death of innocent civilians and bursting of shells in our city. There is the real persecution of Christians. The terrorists took many of our brothers hostages; others needed to escape from the city. The church buildings are occupied … We pay for our Christianity and our faith in God. However, we made a choice of serving people in spite of political opinions or colors of a flag. We acknowledge two groups of people: those who were born again and those who still are in need of God’s salvation. We often do not say that we are church representatives; however, we do not try to hide it. I often say that we are civilians just as many others; that we love God and people; that we would like to help others and do this for free … The Church was returned to an active life in such a difficult period of life.
The pastor of the Protestant church called ‘God’s Assembly’ in Donetsk and coordinator of ‘Prayer Platform’ Sergey Kosyak suggested even a more minimalist mission program,
We just pray. We do not call for violence or political parties. I take people as sinners in spite of pro-Ukrainian or anti-Ukrainian opinions. I call people to pray for Ukraine by kneeling before God, because I think that a humility before God is our only salvation.
Missiology after Maidan attempts to be holistic, means to balance the interests of the Church and society, ‘spiritual’ and ‘earthly’ issues, individual and political dimensions; however, to be ready for minimalism, means to respond to the people’s primary needs, instead of developing a strategy of church growth.
Geography of ‘Mission after Maidan’
After the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine remained a part of post-Soviet space and Eurasia became the main field of missionary work. Many Ukrainian churches were participating in the processes of Central Asia and Russia through missionary activity. However, there has been the development of an anti-Ukrainian mood and extrusion of Ukrainian missionaries recently, because of state policy. Therefore, Ukrainian Protestant missionaries have redirected their activity to internal mission, spiritual care of the Ukrainian diaspora, and non-Christian Third World countries.
I would like to relate examples of how Maidan’s events have had an influence on identity of Protestant missions. I know very well the history of these Christians organizations (to which I am going to refer); actually, I have participated in their history as well. So, I can say that those changes were speeded up and confirmed by the events of Maidan.
The first example is linked to the organization ‘The Ukrainian Fellowship of Evangelical Students’ (UFES). It is a subdivision of a world organization ‘The International Fellowship of Evangelical Students’ (IFES). UFES is part of regional association IFES-Eurasia. For three years the National Committee of Directors of UFES has tried to move from IFES-Eurasia to IFES-Europe. The activists of UFES took an active missionary and voluntary part in the events of Maidan. Now the leaders of RFES (‘The Russian Fellowship of Evangelical Students’) and IFES-Eurasia have accused their Ukrainian colleagues of participation in political upheaval. They said that UFES brought discredit on the whole student movement in Eurasian countries, because all leaders of FES look like westernists and mutineers. Therefore, the leaders of UFES decided to speed up the process of withdrawal from IFES-Eurasia. There were very intensive negotiations with the leadership of IFES-Eurasia during the last months. Unfortunately, there still is no resolution or results, because the leaders of IFES-Eurasia think that UFES must be a part of the Eurasian community, instead of developing into a European community.
The second example is linked to the missionary organization known as ‘Russian Ministries’ in the West and the Association ‘Dukhovnoye vozrozhdeniye’ in the post-Soviet countries. Since 1992 the mission had a central office in Moscow with a big staff. All resources and projects were coordinated from this ‘Moscow center’. In 2005 a process of mission restructuring began. The mission was transformed from a centralized organization into a network structure with a center in Kiev (Irpen). There also was a search for new name for the organization which could correspond with new political realities and not compromise the ministries in Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Probably, now the word ‘Eurasian’ will be used instead of ‘Russian’. It is not a typical example for the Ukrainian context, because the mission is not going to change the focus of its ministry in the whole post-Soviet space (including the ministry in Russia). It is interesting that the mission prefers to coordinate all its projects from Ukraine even on the Eurasian scale.
Thus, names and titles can fix the deep changes in mission understanding, searching for conformity with the new regional and geopolitical reality, and directions of its work.
The shift from Eurasia to Europe has already occurred for many Ukrainian Protestant missions. This process of reorientation has been drawn out during the last one and a half decades, when Protestants felt the ingratitude of Russian society and realized the needs of the Ukrainian diaspora. If the missionary direction was in an easterly direction in the first years of religious freedom, then recently it has been westerly.
In addition, there has been an extension of needs of internal mission. Ukraine (and Moldova) were both country-donors during the last years. The best missionaries and pastors went to Siberia, Yakutia, and Central Asia etc. Hundreds of missionaries still are in those places. Meanwhile, our recently transformed Ukrainian society has become the most perspective evangelization field needing missionaries.
Finally, a shift from globalism to ethnocentrism has happened in the history of Ukrainian Protestant mission. There has come an understanding that the Gospel needs to be preached first to our own nation not others; that disciples of Christ are called to be ‘witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth’ (Acts 1:8). It means to be ‘witnesses in Kiev and in all Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and to the end of Eurasia’.
On March 27, Valeriy Antonyuk appealed to the Baptist Church for active evangelization in Ukraine,
Today God is speaking unusually to Ukraine. This is the time for analysis of the past, consideration of the present, and preparation for the future. There are a lot of churches and Christians in Ukraine. We were glad to serve others in the past. However, today we are asking you to serve Ukraine.
Maidan as a Need and Opportunity
Maidan has become a chance for renewal of Protestant missiology, the finding of integrity and interactivity, when it covers all aspects of human life by Christian witnessing and care; when missiology is willing to listen to people and to learn from them no less than to speak to them and teach them.
Maidan also has become a unique chance for Protestant churches to be a part of transforming a socio-political movement. These global and deep processes which are transforming Ukraine as both country and nation. Ukrainian Protestantism has a unique opportunity to become one of the national churches which will be respected by society and other confessions.
The most serious crisis in the history of Ukraine has become the greatest opportunity for Protestant missions and the Church. Before Maidan our society looked at the Church in the light of its historical meaning and degree of political influence (proximity to authority). After Maidan society looks at the Church in the light of its ability to respond to the needs of people. Therefore, ‘historical’ and ‘evangelical’ churches have an even chance of public recognition. For a long time Protestants have been ranked as sectarians by Ukrainian society; thus, they have habituated themselves to that position and, probably, would not risk changing it, if Maidan had not occurred. In other words, society gives huge credit (confidence, recognition, and freedom of action) to Protestant churches right now. To fulfill this credit is a difficult task. Protestants did not ask for this, but to reject it would be a shame.
However, there has been no sense in talking about the marginal character of Protestants after Alexander Turchynov, an evangelical Christian and leader in Maidan became the Interim President (till May 26, 2014) and the Head of the Ukrainian Parliament.
In these circumstances, society stopped being separated from the Church or ‘missionary field’, but instead it became a natural environment where the Church has a responsibility for political, social, cultural, and ‘missionary’ activity as well. It is a unique historical chance for Ukrainian Protestants to move from mission as a specific activity to being with society in all aspects of its life; to move from external mission (church-‘world’-church) to internal mission (Kingdom-church-‘world’-Kingdom); to move from a marginal character to social; to move from ministry in Ukraine to understanding its own Ukrainian identity; to move from sharing the Gospel to being a transforming presence (from proclamation to Reformation).
Reformation Mission
There are two concrete needs of society for Protestants (consequently, Protestant churches may reconsider and extend the definition of mission) besides those already mentioned: needs in charity, words of reconciliation, a prophetic voice and spiritual and moral education. There are needs for a ‘new evangelization’ of Ukraine and Europe (here the Protestant understanding of Christianity in the aspect of personal relationship with God and priority of the Gospel take on special significance for traditional confessions and the nominal Christian majority as well; in this context, Protestant mission is in helping nominal orthodox believers to become evangelical orthodox believers, not to transform them into Protestants) and the Protestant factor of Europeanization of Ukraine (which means reopening the ‘spiritual background’ of Europe and retransmission of ‘Protestant’ values, ethics, and models of public life).
The ‘Mission’ of Protestant churches is becoming both evangelistic and civilized in the light of historic-cultural peculiarities and urgent needs of society. It is a reunion of Ukraine and Europe where there is no need to make a choice between European and Christian, and where European and Christian are reconsidered in the light of a ‘Protestant’ reading of the Gospel. In other words, it is ‘the Reformation mission’ of Ukraine and Europe, Ukrainian and European Christianity. It is the Christian analogue of ‘the Maidan revolution’.
Reformation is a demand of Maidan to the Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian Church. Protestants should know better than others what Reformation means. There was not a renewal of Europe and Christianity without the Reformation. There will not be a renewal of Christian and European Ukraine without a Reformation. Protestants have a unique opportunity to make it as their mission.

Может ли миссия обойтись без войны?

• 4 декабря, 2015
• Статьи

Постсекулярный мир с недоумением открыл для себя неисчерпаемый арсенал религии. Мы увидели гибридные, религиозно-политические проекты, в которых хорошо интегрируются убеждения и ценности, власть и насилие. Ради чего последователи религий готовы убивать и умирать, воевать и покорять вере? Помимо прочих мотивов здесь присутствует мотив миссионерский. Именно он мобилизует религиозное сообщество к расширению пределов любой ценой, именно он сталкивает с соседями, оправдывая войну. Об этом миссионерском мотиве стоит думать больше, так как история отношений христианства с исламом во многом объясняется как история двух конкурирующих миссионерских движений.
Для христиан Европа видится домом, а весь внешний мир – миссионерским полем. Правда, последнее время и сама Европа становится объектом миссии. Речь идет о новой евангелизации Европы. Почему это понадобилось? Потому что христиане стали постхристианами, и рядом с ними живет все больше нехристиан. Возникает потребность в новой внутренней колонизации. Я буду говорить об этом критически – в русле подходов Дженкинса и Асада. Но нельзя отрицать и положительную работу, которую европейское христианство начинает в своем внутреннем пространстве, примиряя свою традицию с новыми религиозно-политическими реалиями. Стало быть вопрос не о самой колонизации и рекультивации, переосвоении пространства, а о том, какой характер эти процессы приобретут? Если идея Christendom станет доминирующей, то будет трудно обойтись без риторики в духе крестовых походов. Если евангелизация будет пониматься как рехристианизация, то здесь будет трудно обойтись без насилия. Если будущее европейского христианства представляется под знаком реконкисты, то агрессивная миссиология грозит перейти в горячую, военную фазу.
Естественной реакцией на «исламский терроризм» может быть христианский радикализм, выражаемый в том числе через более агрессивную миссию. Но поскольку христианство претендует на сверхъестественность, то радикализм в любых формах представляется реакцией неадекватной.
Напротив, христианские интеллектуалы, знающие на личном опыте разрушительный потенциал религиозного радикализма, задают неожиданный для обычных людей, но вполне «евангельский» вопрос о связи религии, власти и насилия. Так Мирослав Вольф, в своей статье «В свете парижских терактов: не пора ли избавиться от религии?», обличает политические амбиции религий и призывает к постоянной реформации, разделяющей религиозное и политическое: «Такие реформации не остановят потоки крови и слез, но зато освободят религии от соучастия в этой резне» [1].
Как освободить религию от участия в продолжающейся резне и при этом уважить ее право на распространение, если политическое и религиозное влияние до сих пор шли рука об руку? Последнее обстоятельство особенно важно учитывать применительно к истории христианства и ислама. Именно они известны своим агрессивным миссионерством, подчиняющим и оправдывающим любые политические проекты. То, что для других может быть политикой, для последовательных христиан и мусульман – форма миссии.
В отличие от Мирослава Вольфа, Филип Дженкинс представляет исключительно негативный сценарий: миссия станет мотивом новых, еще более жестоких войн, а все возможные реформации будут иметь направленность к радикализации. В своей книге «Грядущее христианство» [2] Дженкинс предрекает противостояние христианства и ислама в системе координат Севера и Юга. Религиозная активность окончательно сместится на юг, чему будут способствовать демографические процессы и миссионерские усилия. Именно там развернутся настоящие войны за души людей. Причем мусульмане Юга и христиане Севера будут едины в своих коммерческих интересах (нефть дороже веры), а христиане и мусульмане Юга будут заодно в противостоянии «секуляризму». Религиозные свободы, права человека, либеральные ценности станут пустыми словами. Вера станет яростной. Оружие – надежней аргументов. Религия будет вынуждена опираться на власть и насилие, чтобы не проиграть более агрессивным соперникам. Религиозная карта мира будет быстро меняться. Некогда христианская Европа станет миссионерским полем для апостолов глобального Юга. Миссионеры от ислама и христианства уже ведут ожесточенные бои в Азии и Африке, и вот-вот откроется европейский фронт. Как говорит осторожная Меркель, «Проблемы Европы не в том, что много ислама, а в том, что мало христианства». Так что даже политики видят решение своих европейских проблем в укреплении собственной идентичности и расширении христианского влияния, без которых рискуют утратить субъектность и превратиться в объект чужих влияний.
Возникает вопрос, возможно ли такое понимание миссии, которое исключает насилие, такие миссионерские подходы, которые не перерастут в миссионерские войны? Здесь нужно помыслить не только неагрессивную миссиологию, которая сочетала бы верность своей традиции и миссионерскую страсть с «либеральными» ценностями религиозной свободы и прав человека, но и политический образ Европы как «комплексного пространства».
О последнем хорошо говорит Талал Асад, соглашаясь, что мусульмане в Европе – религиозное меньшинство, которое не у себя дома: «Ключевое влияние на становление европейской культуры оказали Римская империя, христианство, Просвещение и индустриализация. В силу того, что эти исторические вехи не являются определяющими для мигрантов-мусульман, Европа для них не дом. Исламский антагонизм в отношении христианства становится критически важным для формирования европейской идентичности» [3]. При этом уточняет: «меньшинство» – не просто количественное понятие, оно возникло в результате особых трансформаций в рамках христианской цивилизации, в результате распада связей между церковью и государством в период ранней современности. Среди прав, на которые претендуют меньшинства, есть право на поддержание и увековечивание себя именно как группы. В этом смысле меньшинство не отличается от большинства, которое тоже является исторически сложившейся группой. Тот факт, что меньшинства численно меньше, – случаен».
Асад предлагает противоречивый тезис, деконструирующий стереотипное понимание Европы как гомогенно христианской: «исторические традиции, например традиции европейского Просвещения, необходимо ставить под вопрос, но одновременно необходимо уважать исторические традиции так называемых «меньшинств». Моя очевидная непоследовательность продиктована либеральным стремлением создать время и пространство для более слабых групп в рамках пространства, находящегося под контролем групп доминирующих».
Чтобы реализовать это «либеральное стремление» и обеспечить права религиозных меньшинств, придётся переосмыслить восприятие времени и пространства, увидеть их комплексными: «Идея комплексного пространства – плодотворный способ анализа пересекающихся границ и гетерогенных действий индивидов и групп, опирающихся на разные традиции. В отличие от современного, светского мира государств-наций, средневековый мир христианства и ислама признавал множественность накладывающихся друг на друга границ и идентичностей».
Так либеральное стремление Асада переходит в апологию Средневековья.
Признаюсь, мне это нравится: традиционализм, совместимый с либеральными ценностями.
Думается, это важно удержать и в миссиологии – нерасторжимую связь религиозных и общечеловеческих ценностей, религиозной свободы и прав человека; верность своей традиции и приверженность общему этосу.
И в заключение я хочу обратиться к тезису, недавно представленному в статье Оксаны Форостины [4]: каждая культура и религия имеет право на своего Вольтера (я бы добавил, что каждая нация имеет право на своего Ататюрка), ислам имеет право на своё Просвещение. Критически усвоенное наследие европейской истории, в нерасторжимой связи Средневековья-Возрождения-Реформации-Просвещения задаёт то самое гетерогенное видение времени и пространства, о котором говорит Асад, и которое корректирует понимание миссии, исключая исламистские конкисты и христианские реконкисты, халифаты и крестовые походы. Тогда становится возможным вопрос об общей миссии, в которую нужно вписать свою разность, и общем европейском доме, в котором будут рады всем.

1. Miroslav Volf. In light of the Paris attacks, is it time to eradicate religion? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/16/in-light-of-the-paris-attacks-is-it-time-to-eradicate-religion/
2. Philip Jenkins The Next Christendom. The coming of Global Christianity. Oxford University Press. 2011
3. Asad T. Muslims as a “religious minority” in Europe // Asad T. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003
4. Оксана Форостина. Крик // Критика? — 2015. – 3-4 (209-210) http://krytyka.com/ua/articles/kryk

Реформация и православие

• 23 ноября, 2015
• Статьи

Реформация и православие остаются несовместимыми, даже в режимах богословских дискуссий. В какой форме тема Реформации может присутствовать в межконфессиональных дискуссиях? Что нужно учесть, чтобы ее обсуждение стало возможным?
Во-первых, нужно исходить из прямой связи между Реформацией и единством. Единство Церкви без Реформации недостижимо. Реформация без единства невозможна. Реформация по определению касается всей Церкви в ее конфессиональном многообразии. Иначе бы мы говорили о конфессиональных реформах.
Во-вторых, стоит отказаться от понимания своей конфессии как монолитной структуры. За схематичным диалогом протестантизма и православия нужно увидеть сложное разнообразие. Вместо православной Церкви стоит говорить о православных церквях. Православие внутренне разнородно. Православие и РПЦ не совпадают по объему. Протестантизм европейский и постсоветский тоже отличаются, хотя родовое имя у них одинаковое. Понимание внутренней конфессиональной разнородности создают возможность для внутренней свободы, а уже затем и для диалога с внешними. Если в истории православия были такие «протестанты», как патриарх Кирилл Лукарис, митрополит Петро Могила, философ Григорий Сковорода, то в православии появляется внутренний фактор инаковости, а у протестантов возникает чувство родства.
В-третьих, еще более сложное разнообразие нужно увидеть в истории Церкви. Бои за историю, за ее избирательную приватизацию-конфессионализацию нужно прекратить. Православие не имеет собственной непрерывной линии от Христа до наших дней. История до 1054 года – общее (католическое) наследие всех церквей. Крещение Руси – тоже общее, к РПЦ никакого отношения не имеющее. А если имеющее, то ровно настолько, насколько и другие церкви. Стоит преодолеть и стереотипы относительно протестантизма. Он не был изобретением 16 столетия, он был и должен оставаться частью истории единой Церкви, творчески продолжая или изменяя наследие католической (а в постсоветском контексте — православной) традиции. Если признать, что история глубже 1054 года может называться историей католической Церкви, то придется ответить на вопрос, можно ли выстроить протестантско-православные отношения минуя католицизм? Я думаю, что в диалоге протестантов и православных нельзя найти общее, не обращаясь к «католической» (т.е. общей) истории. Десятилетия лютеранско-православного диалога учат именно этому – все сравнения, разграничения и сближения повисают в воздухе без общей опоры на непрерывную католическую традицию. Т.е. православные и протестанты, будучи антикатолическими по своему происхождению, могут найти общее лишь в обращении к этим общим, хотя и проблемным для них корням. Примирение с католической традицией – важнейшее условие преобразующего сближения двух антикатолических конфессий.
В особенности это актуально для протестантизма. Может ли постсоветский протестантизм, с православно-сектантскими корнями, быть частью движения Реформации? Стоит ли ему рассматривать себя в контексте православия или в связи с западной традицией? В отрыве от европейской Реформации и, глубже, от католической традиции, протестантизм будет восприниматься как секта внутри православия, соответственно, утратит свою субъектность и право на диалог. По большому счету, православие обнаруживает готовность к диалогу лишь с метатрадицией – с католической Церковью. И тема Реформации возникает лишь в связи с ней, а не как самостоятельная либо протестантская.
В-четвертых, Реформация возможна там, где идентичность понимается как открытая. Что такое православие? Ответить не так просто. Идентичность конфессий нужно нуждается в реконструкции, т.е. в таком воссоздании, где бережное, уважительное отношение сочетается с творческим воображением и актуальным толкованием. В этом смысле история конфессий – не священный канон, но продолжающееся творчество. То, что было, не обязывает к бесконечному повторению. Скорее, поощряет к анализу, переосмыслению, улучшению. Вот факт: Реформация в РПЦ не удавалась никому – ни стригольникам, ни молоканам, ни меневцам, ни кочетковцам. Зададим вопрос: что в истории РПЦ препятствовало Реформации и преобразующему сближению с другими церквями? Следующий вопрос может быть таким: как стоит пересмотреть свою исторически обусловленную идентичность, чтобы она удовлетворяла библейско-богословским принципам и ультимативному требованию христианского единства?
Наконец, в каких формах Реформация продолжается сегодня, в эпоху кризиса церковных структур и недоверия к авторитетам? Пути Реформации ведут не через высокие кабинеты и богословские комиссии, но через живое общение рядовых верующих. Де факто, примирение происходит всякий раз, когда протестант читает тексты православных богословов и обогащается ими; когда православный автор цитирует протестантов в своих работах или выступлениях; когда возникает дружба и сотрудничество, обмен идеями и горячие диспуты между богословами разных конфессий.
Вот мой личный пример. Я – прихожанин протестантской, а именно баптистской церкви. При этом преподаю в католическом университете и пятидесятнической семинарии, дружу с православными разных патриархатов. Наиболее близкие мне по духу – митрополит Антоний Сурожский, поэтесса Ольга Седакова, богослов Кирилл Говорун, философ Юрий Черноморец. При этом в вопросах миссиологии я следую за пресвитерианами, а в социальной теологии – за католиками. И кто я после всего этого? Я не перестал быть протестантом, но знаю и принимаю меру православности и католичности, достраивая свою христианскую идентичность, открывая в другом недостающее и ценное. Подобным образом, православным может понадобится мера протестантскости, «евангельский» фермент, способный оживить церковную традицию. В конце концов, не так важно, что именно мы получаем друг от друга, важно уже то, что мы поворачиваемся друг ко другу и видим лицо, образ, разноличие, разнообразие, дополнительность, богатство христианства как такового.
Мне кажется, что такой экуменический тип христианина и такой экуменический способ отношений к разным традициям станут доминирующими – по крайней мере, в среде христиан-интеллектуалов.
А что в среде неинтеллектуалов? Там тоже есть свое сближение, особенно со стороны протестантов. Мотив сближения – тяга к традиции, жажда глубины. Конечно, православие, особенно московского образца, не сможет утолить эту жажду, или сможет лишь отчасти. Но именно в обращении к традиции, в ее живом прочтении, и протестанты, и православные, смогут найти возможность большей глубины и путь к общей (нашей, но не только нашей) традиции. Ведь Реформация – не только о простоте Евангелия, но и о предельной глубине, до которой не достигает ни одна из церковных традиций, но именно там все они могут встретиться.

Возможность Реформации как возможность общего будущего

• 20 ноября, 2015
• Статьи

Приближающийся юбилей Реформации вряд ли стоит праздновать как успех протестантизма. Скорее это повод задуматься о том, почему программа Реформации в рамках протестантизма оказалась невыполнимой.
Еще в меньшей мере юбилей Реформации может быть праздником для других конфессий. Для католической Церкви это напоминание трагического разрыва церковного единства.
Для православной – преступная попытка модернизации, приспособления к динамике развития секулярной западноевропейской цивилизации.
И католики, и православные видят в Реформации вызов для Церкви, но понимают его по-разному. Для католической Церкви идея реформации была не новой и не чуждой, неприемлемым было другое – яростное противостояние Риму, закончившееся расколом и созданием новой конфессии. Для православной же Церкви Реформация как идея, независимо от ее форм и исполнения, представляется однозначно еретичной и чрезвычайно опасной. Об этом стоит подумать больше — почему православие оказалось мало восприимчивым (в основном в части протестантской критики католичества), почти закрытым к идеям Реформации, почему даже собственные реформаторские движения в православии маргинализировались и выкорчевывались.
Как бы мы не оценивали прошедшие пять столетий, сегодня ясно одно: Реформация как конфессиональный проект оказывается невыполнимым.
Возникает вопрос: стоит ли вновь вернуться к идее Реформации как общецерковного, межконфессионального обновления? Этот вопрос упраздняет вопросы конфессиональные – возможна ли Реформация в православии и можно ли реформировать уже реформированных и не раз перереформированных протестантов. Точнее так: вопросы конфессиональной Реформации становятся подвопросами и находят решение лишь в общей перспективе.
В случае с протестантизмом подвопрос «Возможна ли новая реформация в протестантизме?» имеет смысл как часть более общей темы «Готов ли протестантизм ради Реформации вернуться к отношениям церковного единства с православием или католицизмом, чтобы пережить совместное преобразование?». В случае с православием вопрос похожий: «К каким формам преобразующего церковного единства с протестантами и католиками готова православная Церковь?».
Нас разделяет прошлое, мы вряд ли сможем выяснить запутанные отношения, но быть может все еще возможно искупить взаимную вину через сближающее смирение, воображение и дерзновение о будущем единстве?
Для меня очевидно, что с позиций евангельского богословия ответ должен быть положительным. Но настолько же очевидным является дефицит политической воли церковного руководства и просвещенности церковных общин. Стало быть, вопрос нужно уточнить: в каких формах возможно межцерковное сотрудничество ради общего будущего, отвечающее максимализму богословских требований и минимализму наличных церковных возможностей?

Protestantism and Protest: Socio-Theological Re-Identification of Ukraine and Ukrainian Protestantism in the Context of Maidan

• 18 ноября, 2015
• Статьи

Religion, State, Society, and Identity in Transition
Ukraine / Rob Van Laarse, Mykhailo N. Cherenkov, Tetiana Mykhalchuk and Vitaliy V. Proshak, eds. WLP, 2015

The Ukrainian Maidan revealed both a non-random and non-trivial connection between Protestantism and protest. The Revolution of Dignity and Freedom combined in itself a declaration of social justice and a civilized choice of European values. On the one hand, this Revolution mobilized the social potential of Protestant churches; however, on the other hand, it divided them according to theological views. It is the first time Ukrainian Protestants began to ask themselves a number of questions: ‘What does it mean to be a Protestant? What does it mean to be a Ukrainian? And what does it imply to be a Ukrainian Protestant?’
Maidan immediately challenged the remaining remnants of the Soviet past and Soviet-era church structures, and led to the creation of a truly Ukrainian society. Maidan also led to the creation and formation of a Ukrainian, not a post-Soviet, Protestantism. In the context of that interpretation of Maidan, the formation and progress of civil society, and self-determination of the whole nation is inseparably linked with the socio-political activity of the churches, particularly with the potential of protest by Protestants.
The author is going to examine this connection, taking into consideration his own experience, meetings with Maidan representatives, a review of church documents, and the personal reactions of Protestant leaders. Various Protestant views of the reality of Maidan are collected in two significant publications: ‘Maydan i Tserkva’ , and ‘Tserkovʹ na Maydane’ (Protestant authorship), as well as other internet publications. Internet publications have their own peculiarity, format, degree of credibility, relevance, etc. However, these ‘electronic’ documents are very important, because of their exclusivity, relevance, and lack of censorship.
It is impossible to make conceptual conclusions without an analysis of various online materials, which could clarify a connection between Protestantism and protest in the context of Maidan. I am going to investigate the Protestant positions on and reactions to Maidan’s reality only within the framework of Protestantism itself. For a long time there has been a tradition of students of religion, sociologists, historians, etc writing about Protestantism, however now Protestants have started to talk about themselves. The Protestant reaction to the events of Maidan is not accidental or casual. It should be investigated and considered.
The structure of the following text will include the author’s hypothesis, a chronology of events and reactions, typology of different views, key interpretations, and possible applications and perspectives.
Hypothesis: a connection between Protestantism and protest in the context of Maidan indicates an untapped potential of Protestant communities, which could be used in the European integration of Ukraine, and in the process of development and formation of its renewed identity and comprehensive modernization. Maidan became a place, an event, a subject, or a path to a new identity for Ukrainian society and Ukrainian Protestantism. It is no coincidence that Maidan provoked very active Protestant reflection. This phenomenon of unprecedented reflection on protest makes it reasonable to propose a hypothesis of a connection between Protestantism and protest.
Chronology of events and reactions: all the way from EuroMaidan to the Revolution of Dignity, from conflict between the people and the state to Russian aggression against Ukraine
On the night of November 21, 2013, after the Ukrainian government suspended preparations for signing an Association Agreement with the European Union, protests began, which became known as ‘EuroMaidan’.
Among the protesters were both private individuals and Ukrainian citizens, who wanted to live, study and work in a civilized European society. Generally, the majority of EuroMaidan participants were students and interns, who knew their own worth, spoke foreign languages, valued their freedom, and sought to put their talents to good use.
At four o’clock in the morning on November 30th, government forces brutally dispersed the EuroMaidan protesters. The students were able to take shelter in St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery. That evening, tens of thousands of people gathered in St. Michael’s Square. They protested against the government’s use of violence. If dozens of people, supporters of a European direction for Ukraine, were at EuroMaidan, then thousands of people were in St. Michael’s Square, to protest against the violence and unlawful actions of the Ukrainian government.
The Pentecostals were the first among the Protestants to react to the latest developments. Nykolai Synyuk, first deputy of the Head Bishop of the Ukrainian Church of Christians of Evangelical Faith declared that,
Last night radically changed the established views among Ukrainian citizens regarding those who ‘do not bear the sword in vain’ – referring to the military and police. An evangelical principle says: ‘Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good… for he is God’s servant for your good… for he is… an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer’ (Rom. 13:4). This principle was reversed. Those who gave the commands to beat peaceful citizens, are answerable not only to criminal law, but God’s Law as well… brute force was always a sign of weakness both in individuals and in power structures.
On December 2, 2013, Mykhayl Panochko, the head of Ukrainian Pentecostals, made an appeal ‘regarding the situation’. He said,
The believers of the Ukrainian Church of Christians of Evangelical Faith were troubled to learn about the severe beating of peaceful protesters, young boys and girls, by the special police force ‘Berkut’ on November 30th. It is an obvious depreciation of human life and health and a violation of human rights and dignity. These unconstitutional actions of our government and power structures lit the fire of national wrath. We thank God that our Ukrainian nation showed its tenacity and completely peaceful character of protest. It is indicative of the love of freedom and wisdom of our nation.
On December 5th, an Interconfessional Prayer Tent was opened for everyone at Maidan. This Prayer Tent was set up by three leaders from New Life Church (The Alliance of Independent Evangelical Churches), and Transfiguration Church (All-Ukrainian Union of Associations of Evangelical Christians Baptists). The Interconfessional Prayer Tent became a center of Protestant activity: prayer, practical help, evangelism, and medical assistance. It was created without any ‘political’ agreements with church leadership. This ‘local’ initiative united hundreds of patriotic Protestants, various informal leaders, and independent pastors.
Meanwhile the official Baptist leadership preferred to keep silent, even accentuating its absence of activity. Vyacheslav Nesteruk, the President of the All-Ukrainian Union of Associations of Evangelical Christians Baptists, said to Russian Baptist journalists,
We always try to be apolitical. We understand that everything that is going on around us occurs by the will of God. The current very complicated political situation is wholly the result of decisions of our government. We have no activity at Maidan. We are trying to keep quiet and maintain neutrality… Of course, we are dependent on our politicians. We have no influence on them.
It is noteworthy that this interview was obtained on November 28, 2013, which means it was before the brutal dispersal of students at EuroMaidan on November 30th. However, the interview was only published on the official website of the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians Baptists on December 10, 2013. By that point the word ‘neutrality’ was interpreted as undisguised provocation, and this interview was used to put pressure on Ukrainian Protestants. It seems as if it were an act of ‘information warfare’ against Ukraine.
This interview was spread around by the Russian mass media. An immediate reaction to this was expected: Ukrainian Baptist theologians produced an open letter, ‘a declaration of dissent,’ on December 11th, which declared,
The Baptist Church, from the very first days of its existence, has stood up for freedom and justice. The independence of the Church from the state (the seventh Baptist principle) does not mean political indifference, asociality, or isolation of the Church from the society. Ukrainian Baptists welcomed the independence of Ukraine and have served our nation through the social and spiritual potential of church communities. Baptists are the part of the Ukrainian nation; therefore, they respect the people’s choices and freedom to defend these choices through peaceful demonstrations. Evangelical Christians cannot be apart or ‘neutral’, when authorities abuse their own power, when peaceful people’s blood is shed, when courts make unconstitutional decisions, when security forces defend not the people, but the authorities. Participation in demonstrations is the personal responsibility of each believer; this responsibility is inseparable from faith, and expresses itself in civil liability.
On December 11, 2013, when a new assault occurred, dozens of Protestants (youth leaders, pastors, even bishops) were among the protesters. Their participation completely refuted the declarations of the first Baptist Union spokespersons that ‘we are not active on Maidan’. It made clear the range of theoretical and moral opinions within Protestant circles; in other words, the differences between the still ‘Soviet’ group of ‘spiritual’ leaders, and the new wave of informal Ukrainian church leaders.
On December 18, 2013, a significant new interview appeared. This was an interview with Anatoliy Kalyuzhnyy, the leader of the Alliance of Independent Evangelical Churches. In this interview this well-known Protestant leader evaluated the actions of the authorities, the ‘Interconfessional Prayer Tent,’ and the reactions of Protestant communities. He said,
Approximately 50-70% of churches refused to join us, they showed passivity and indifference. Now many church leaders understand that there is much to gain from support of the authorities. Many leaders of Protestant churches are still intimidated. They are silent, afraid and awaiting developments to see which side to join. This is sad, because the Church is like the conscience within each of us, and speaks regardless of people’s desire to hear it. Every authority would like to have a controlled Church in their pocket. Thus they seat us next to them; they try to trick us into saying what they want to hear from us. However, if a person is responsible before God, then he will speak only the truth, not what others want to hear from him. Such a person must be courageous. The Bible many times says that we need to speak only the truth and stand for truth. If we as Christians do not take risks in our faith, then there is a need to ask: ‘Is this faith real?’
On January 15, 2014, the Ukrainian Catholic University organized an interconfessional roundtable ‘Theology in the context of Maidan’ in Kiev, where representatives of Protestant, Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches presented their vision of Maidan and the views of their churches. Particularly, pastor Mykola Romanyuk called on Protestants to learn the lesson of ‘hermeneutics and theology’,
We act as we believe. We believe according to our interpretation and application of Scripture. Our Baptist and Pentecostal hermeneutics (and theology) of social matters has been formed both by Anabaptism and the framework of totalitarian systems. Hence many ministers, pastors, leaders have that fear and unwillingness to see, respond, and be a part of social processes. Hence there is a lack of knowledge and an unwillingness to know one’s own constitutional rights as a citizen. Even the apostle Paul enjoyed his rights as a citizen of the Roman empire. I could also add to this the brave speeches of prophets from Moses to John the Baptist against the authorities. We really need to change our theology from declaratory to practical, because we have no right to be better, more peaceful or more saintly than our Lord Jesus Christ, John the Baptist or the apostles. Their faith did not preclude civic responsibility, and that responsibility was not suppressed, but declared in public. A careful study of the New Testament will reveal the responsibility of church leaders to stand up to sin not only in the context of church communities, but also in the context of a whole nation by pointing out the sins of the authorities.
On January 16, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine passed the ‘Dictatorship laws’, which toughened punishments for protesters, and made many civil and church initiatives unlawful. In response, on January 17th, Protestants organized the roundtable ‘Maidan and the Church: the mission and social responsibility of Christians’. The round table passed a resolution, which stated,
The Church abstained from the political speculations on the Association Agreement with the European Union. However, now the Church cannot straddle the fence when the people’s blood was shed at Maidan on November 30, 2013. In accordance with our moral responsibility before God and society, the Church must call this carnage of peaceful people a crime, condemn the guilty, and help the victims. The Maidan in Kiev and protests in other regions show people’s constitutional demands for respect of their freedom, dignity and rights; calls on authorities to follow their constitutional function for a common good; and calls on authorities to not abuse their power. The Church reminds us of God’s commandments of love and forgiveness for both the government and the protesters; because without these commandments the demands of justice can end in chaos and violence. We are calling on all to do their best to find a peaceful solution to this conflict.
The roundtable ‘Maidan and the Church’ united Protestant activists of different communities (Pentecostal, Neo-Pentecostal, Independent Missionary, Baptist, Reformed, and Lutheran). It revealed the faces and positions of the real leaders who showed their worth during the developments of Maidan. These leaders are Oleg Magdych, Oles Dmytrenko, Ralf Haska, Anatoliy Kalyuzhnyy, Peter Marchenko, Valeriy Antonyuk, Andrey Shekhovcov, Peter Kovaliv, Denys Gorenkov, Sergey Gula, Sergey Tymchenko, Alexey Satenko, Ivan Rusyn, and Alexander Bychkov.
The Protestant leaders, by supporting the protest, were calling on people to explore every avenue to direct that protest in a peaceful, constructive and ‘Christian’ way. Peter Kovaliv said,
Not many Christians came to ‘EuroMaidan’ compared to the thousands who came together with others to protest against lawlessness, crime and arbitrary rule by the authorities… If the authorities consciously proceed in a criminal way instead of acting for the good of the people (Rom. 13:4) and punishing offenders (Rom. 13:5), then we need to express our protest. Paul was sentenced to prison undeservedly; therefore, he organized a ‘sitting protest’ in the prison until the Roman authorities apologized to Paul for their unlawful actions (Acts 16:37-40). We also need to remember that the government system of Ukraine is different from the state system of Roman Empire, when New Testament authors were writing. According to the Constitution of Ukraine the highest authority belongs to the nation… It is precisely this position that Christians came to express through their protest. Meanwhile we need to remember that just protest must make use of just methods… Today pastors, bishops, church leaders, and all real Christians have a unique opportunity to support a peaceful national protest against evil and lawlessness, to defend this movement from the unjust methods of authorities, and to participate in bringing real spiritual and moral revival and renewal to our country.
The peacemaking potential of evangelical churches became especially needed after the escape of President Yanukovych, and when Ukraine had a de facto new government. In that period of time, fear hovered over our country of an expansion of conflict in south-eastern Ukraine and a split. On February 24th, ‘The Word of Reconciliation’ by Valeriy Antonyuk was published. The Baptist leader, remembering the apostle’s words, ‘In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation’ (2 Cor. 5:19), laid stress on the need for a restoration of legitimate power. He argued,
We supported the demands of the Ukrainian nation against arbitrary rule by the authorities. Now it is very important to restore justice in the country, form a government of national trust, and ensure an honest presidential election.
At that time, it seemed the time of ‘zealots’ had come to an end, and the time for peacemaking, unification, and restoration had come. Vladyslav Bachynyn said,
A nation cannot consist only of zealots. The history of every nation has periods of time when it needs fanatically selfless activists. However, these periods of time must give way to a new epoch sooner or later. Then, new heroes, new ideas are needed… Simon the Zealot, by communication with Jesus and the influence of the Good News, understood that all people have need of God’s salvation: the Jews and the Gentiles, peaceful people and military men, the Zealot-radicals and the Roman invaders.
However, no sooner had the confrontation between the authorities and the nation ended, when new aggression by a neighbouring state commenced. This aggression both mobilized and divided Ukrainian society once again.
During Russian intervention in the Crimea, the evangelical Protestants expressed their solidarity with the new Ukrainian government by standing up for the unity of the country. In this context, the idea of ‘protest’ assumed the aspect of national loyalty and condemnation of external aggression. It implied that the protest was redirected outward. On March 14, 2014, the Council of Evangelical Protestant Churches of Ukraine suggested ‘the spiritual initiatives’ of a solution to the critical situation in the country, which stated,
Condemning the military aggression of the Russian Federation, we are calling on the Ukrainian nation, regardless of religion, denomination or belief, to intensify your prayers to God for a restoration of peace and a cessation of provocations, fratricide, escalation of conflict in the Crimea and other Ukrainian regions. We ask you to organize Prayer Assemblies in churches and central squares in all cities and villages of our country, praying for the peace, unity, integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. Appeal to the Ukrainian authorities to join this initiative, praying to God, asking Him to give wisdom and guidance in public administration at this especially difficult time for our country.
The next form of Protestant ‘protest’ was expressed by casting blame for the pro-Russian mutiny after the creation of separatist ‘people’s republics’. On June 3, 2014, the Ukrainian Interchurch Council adopted a resolution ‘The Church in times of social chaos’, which appealed to Protestants:
To be a national conscience, by calling on society to uphold national dignity, morality, peacemaking, and law-abidance, and appeal to people to condemn immorality, aggression, violence, and illegal actions. According to the official (Biblical) position, the Church must be objective, unprejudiced, and independent from the secular authorities, political or business systems.
It is interesting that the collective declarations of Protestants are notable for demonstrating greater resoluteness than the documents of individual churches and unions. Take for example the 27th Congress of the All-Ukrainian Union of Associations of Evangelical Christians Baptists which could not adopt the resolution called ‘Appeal to the churches of Evangelical Christians Baptists and all Christian communities’, because it contained a condemnation of the ‘annexation of the Crimea’ and ‘Russian military aggression,’ the support of a ‘European direction’ and the new ‘duly-elected President,’ despite the fact that Baptist leaders had put their signatures on all documents of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, which contained the same theses.
It is significant that Protestants distinguished clearly between protest against illegal authority (Maidan), and a mutiny against legal authority (the ‘people’s republics’ of the Donbas). In the first case, there was silent approval, in the second – silent condemnation. It means that there were some socio-theological criteria with respect to authority (legal or illegal, chosen or self-appointed) which allowed shifts in the church’s position from loyalty to protest, and vice versa.
Therefore opinions concerning the protest evolved through several phases: from protest against protest to protest against authority, then to joint (uniting the authorities and the nation) protest against external aggression; from naïve neutrality to awareness of one’s own socio-political commitment, then to an understanding of one’s own independence, to a certain degree of loyalty (to a dialectical unity of loyalty and independence).
There is another possible transition that is only now being experienced. It is a transition from loyalty to one’s nation to protest against its lawlessness, legal and moral nihilism, xenophobia, and the ‘tyranny of the majority.’

Typology of different views on Maidan
There is an entire spectrum of Protestant views on authority and protest. However four typical views can be classified:
The first view can be called conformist-sectarian: we are apolitical; the Church is not of this world; we do not criticize and do not cooperate; it is not our battle (this position is typical for the unregistered Baptists and Pentecostals, for the radical fundamentalists and ‘biblical separatists’).
The second view is pro-authoritative-pragmatic: we are ready to be loyal to any authority in exchange for gaining goods for ourselves; we are loyal to the authority for the sake of our own part in power (the most popular example of this position could be the Embassy of God Church in Kiev and its leader, Sunday Adelaja).
The third view is critical-destructive: we will always criticize everyone, not taking any responsibilities upon ourselves (this is the position of Protestant ‘armchair quarterbacks’, offended bloggers, and ‘perpetual revolutionaries’).
The fourth view is critical-constructive: we need to speak the truth both to authorities and the nation, to be a prophetic voice and the conscience of the nation, also to be supportive, the most able-bodied and responsible part of society (the Protestant mainstream shares this view).
Attitudes towards Ukraine and its civilized choice between Europe and Eurasia vary from indifference (religious-cosmopolitan insensibility to national and civilizational issues) and Soviet transition (focus on the past and its prolongation) to the opposite radical orientations towards the rising Eurasia (around Orthodox Russia for the present) or the old Europe (prosperous so far, however less and less Christian):
The first attitude is sectarian-indifferent: it does not matter to the Church which country it is in or where it is; the only thing of importance is its own agenda.
The second attitude can be called pro-Soviet: we are afraid of Europe, and not ready to live according to civilized rules; we do not know Eurasia, and are not sure of it; therefore, we prefer to live in a state of post-Soviet transition. Therefore, Ukraine needs to live in the shadow of Russia, and consequently the Ukrainian culture, economics, politics, and religion will be in a ‘shadow’.
The third attitude is Eurasian: Ukraine needs to redirect itself to the Eurasian Union; to dissociate itself from ‘immoral’ Europe; to defend its own ‘traditional values’ against the ‘universal’; to forget about free markets and democracy, about religious freedom and human rights.
The fourth attitude can be characterized as pro-European: the place of Ukraine should be in Europe; the country needs comprehensive modernization and ties to Western business, political and spiritual culture.
Maidan as a socio-theological issue: conflict of interpretations
The differences between the above-named views are based not only on political preferences, but theological views, and methods of reading and interpretation of the Bible. The post-Soviet Protestants for the first time came to consider the issue of authority in the context of issues of freedom, dignity, civil responsibility, lawfulness, and morality. It means that the issue of authority became a subject of theological comprehension, not unconditional adoration.
The different attitudes towards authority and possible protest against it arose from a conflict of two widespread interpretations of authority: mythologization and demythologization.
Maidan seems a radical demythologization of authority to young Pentecostal theologian Anatoliy Denysenko. He said,
After Sergey Nigoyan’s death by a bullet wound on Hrushevskoho Street, many of us began to understand in a new way the words of the apostle Paul, ‘obey the governing authorities.’ It was Sergey Nigoyan who held a poster on which was written, ‘God speaks by the voice of a nation.’ The authority is the nation. President Yanukovich and his whole suite are only representatives of the people called wage workers. However, it was found that these workers were evil, and like in Jesus’ parable, they destroyed the vineyards, and did not bring money to the proper owner.
Everything that was said about Ukrainian authorities could be applied to Russian authorities as well. Therefore, Maidan is a symbol of the demythologization of authority, and demands that authorities be held accountable to the nation.
Generally, in the context of Maidan, the Bible was read keenly and topically and, in turn, Maidan was seen in the context of the Bible as a ‘spiritual’ event. Because of this dual socio-theological perspective, the differences between imagined and actual, between false, self-appointed authority and legal, responsible authority seemed clearer to the people.
The anti-protest and governmental-loyalist interpretation of Maidan arises from a mythologization of authority. Many Russian Protestants consider Maidan a rebellion against legal authority. The Russian Baptists expressed this opinion through a special resolution at the XXXIV Baptist Congress (May 30, 2014). Their resolution states,
We declare our commitment to Biblical teaching, which does not accept violent upheaval, nationalism and resolving socio-political conflicts without political negotiations. ‘Do not join with rebellious officials’ (Proverbs 24:21).
There exist both sacralization of authority and its alienation from the nation, which cannot change anything, and should not attempt to do so. The Bishop of the Russian Evangelical Church Pavel Zhelnovakov expressed the prevailing opinion among Russian Christians of the Evangelical Faith (some of whose leaders are missionaries from Ukraine) on the situation in Ukraine,
We as contemporary Christians need to remember the way the Kingdom of God can be built on the earth. Curiously enough, the truth was revealed to the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar in the time of the prophet Daniel (Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45). It is tempting to help that stone, which destroys all evil, to break away from the mountain as soon as possible. However, the Bible says clearly that the stone ‘was not cut out by human hand’. On this evidence, there is no sense in arguing for the necessity of a Christian approval for ‘EuroMaidans’ and other forms of seeking freedom through violence. According to the words of Jesus Christ, blessings can be brought by peacemakers, not by people with bats and stones in their hands.
Trying to justify this myth of authority, its advocates created a new myth of Russia and the crafty West, which opposes the sacred triad of power ‘orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality’. A pastor in Donetsk, Andrey Puzynyn, has tried to portray Maidan and the following developments as ‘a civilized break’, however he does not offer any moral arguments against ‘the revolution of dignity’. Andrey Puzynyn argues,
According to Russian understanding, there is a clash of civilizations between the West and Russia. In this context, the Russian Federation is a bearer of traditional values, while the West is a bearer of liberal values. According to the Russian perspective, Maidan is a mutiny and associated with the image of radical masked nationalists, who are throwing ‘Molotov cocktails’ at law enforcement representatives, who are forced to resist this lawlessness while, the legitimate President was forced to escape from the country to the Russian Federation.
The author of that statement follows the mythological logic, contrasting Russia and the West, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, tradition and liberalism, and law and protest. In these dichotomies, the first part is treated as sacred, and the second part is demonized. Why? Because of established civilizational differences. Since Ukraine is on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian protesters must accept Russia’s civilizational framework, where order is more important than freedom, personality, human rights and dignity.
However, the references to ‘a civilizational break’ do not explain why some churches are able to speak truth to authorities, while others are ready to do what the authorities tell them. Roman Nosach was right, saying that Maidan revealed a problem of church naivety, submission to the influence of authority and a readiness to be in a state of dependence. ‘As it turned out, we more often believe in political propaganda than our brothers and sisters in Christ.’ It became clear that fear and lack of acceptance of protest is a symptom of a deeper problem of a fear of freedom, state paternalism, peer pressure, and immaturity.
Hence there follows the task of comprehending the national theology of liberation. A pastor from the Lugansk region, Yuriy Symonenko, understands Maidan as an uprising of a province against the empire (rebellion of Ukraine against ‘the Russian world’), a protest of free people, whom God has set free. While the Russian Baptists were delivering a eulogy for Putin, and blaming the ‘mutineers’ of Kiev, pastor Symonenko was asking uncomfortable demythologizing questions,
As I was watching Maidan develope, I saw clearly God’s hand taking power away from a thief, who would dare to mock his own promises to the electorate. Who do you think was right: Nabal, who accused David of mutiny, or Samuel, who anointed David while Saul was alive; Jehu, the self-proclaimed Israelite king who killed King Ahab, or Queen Jezebel, who condemned Jehu for his mutiny, and was consequently killed by Jehu?
The demythologizing approach to authority provides space not only for protest, but also a nation under imperial authority finding itself, its land, and its God (to Whom all power belongs). In this context, Maidan is the long-awaited and difficult Exodus from the USSR, the path of the Ukrainian nation to its own identity. In our case, this way leads from the Soviet past to the European future, from an atheistic society and formal religion to a Christian revival.
The Exodus metaphor applies not only to the nation, but also to the Church, particularly, post-Soviet Protestants. Taras Dyatlik prognosticates,
The Exodus of the Evangelical Church from its Soviet heritage will be very difficult and painful. The ‘Iron Curtain’ fell politically; however, unfortunately, it did not fall in the hearts of many Christians. There will not be any social change or change in our communities, which we are a part of, without a revolution in our hearts… Perhaps God will renew His Church through the political crisis in Ukraine; then social change will be possible through a reformation in the Church. Perhaps God prepared for us a path similar to South Korea’s and that of quite a number of the African countries (Christians of those countries have already gone through the post-colonial crisis of worldview and values), so that we could serve other countries, nations and churches through our missionary potential.
What makes the Ukrainian situation unique is that the society became free before the Church gained its freedom. Oleg Turlak suggests that Maidan is the judgment of free society over the not-yet-free Church. He argues,
Members of evangelical churches had been nurtured in ‘the best’ Soviet traditions of conformity and loyalty. Many evangelical believers do not even understand why there is a need for freedom in their country, and do not believe that some day this freedom will come to the territory of the CIS. Maidan and these evangelical communities are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Perhaps decades will pass before change occurs in churches. I hope that the new generations of young Christians, who are not familiar with a burdensome and contradictory totalitarian past…, will think in a new way, and interpret and apply the Scripture in a different way. I do not know what the future Church will look like; however, I hope that the Church will be other, free. Honestly, I do not really believe that I will live to see those days.

Possible applications and perspectives.
Maidan again raised a question which is very familiar to Protestants about the very difficult moral, civil and theological choice between saving ourselves and transforming this world, between stability and freedom, between readiness to serve the nation and fear of the wrath of authorities, between resistance and submission.
Two old and dangerous Christian myths were tested in the fire of Maidan: the myth of the neutrality of the Church in the context of conflict, and the myth of ‘blind’ belief that ‘there is no authority except from God’ without any exception.
In the context of Maidan, Protestants saw the birth of a new Ukrainian Protestantism and a change of leaders. Now there is a need in Christianity for ‘open’ wholesome ecumenism, joint struggle, Christian solidarity with a nation, and a prophetic voice.
As it has turned out, the Church can be above the conflict and within it as well. The Church is at Maidan, and Maidan is at the Church. The social protest was transferred to the Church, and divided church members into a passive majority and an influential minority, conformists and radicals, ‘the Zealots’ and ‘the Doukhobors’. The divisions in the Church were spatial-temporal; in this regard, a demarcation between the Ukrainian and Russian Protestants is not only the consequence of political and state divisions, but also a rupture of the last link with their common Soviet past.
Maidan sharpened the popular demand for some correction to Ukrainian Protestant theology, especially on the issue of missions and social stance, ecclesiology and ecumenism, national and Christian dimensions of identity, understanding of the links between dogma and social practice.
Oles Dmytrenko has optimistically said that Maidan became the point of no return, the decisive choice of freedom, and the Church cannot but follow society in this uncompromising demand for freedom. He argues,
Maidan already brought us and will bring us to the formation of a free, highly civilized, morally strengthened Ukrainian nation. It has been in the making since 1991. The events of 2004 were the starting point for active progress. However, now is the most important period. It is a new heavy wave which does not depend on the geopolitical preferences of our politicians.
Maidan needs to be understood as a revival and the first impulse of the influential Christian minority. It is the destiny of the minority to understand the value of freedom and to defend it. This raises the question of the social basis of Maidan and the development of Ukraine after Maidan. ‘The influential minority’ could become the basis and guidance for real change. In 2009 I introduced this missiological term; nowadays, it has become quite relevant to our interdisciplinary discourse. The economist Alexander Paskhaver has focused on the role and function of the moral elite and active minorities, where the Protestants especially stand out. He says,
An active minority sparkplugs a passive majority… It is the optimal way for Ukraine to reunite with Europe. We could do this only if we will become Europeans, this means to adopt their values, ethical taboos, views, behavioral patterns, stereotypes. Thereby, we will enrich our Ukrainian identity.
He assures us that,
The values and convictions of the ordinary people are precisely the crucial factor determining differences in the level of development of countries… Looking at the Christian world, we see that Protestant countries are the most developed, followed by Catholic countries , while Orthodox countries are the least developed of all.
In other words, the hope of modernization of Ukraine in a civilized Europe lies in the reception of Protestant ethics and values and a Christians worldview. Theologians agree partly with this optimism for a European future for Ukraine, by interpreting it ‘spiritually’, not in economic terms. The head of missions for the All-Ukrainian Union of Associations of Evangelical Christians Baptists, Stanyslav Gruntkovskiy, argues that ‘Ukraine could be “a spiritual granary” for all of Europe.’ If this mission were interpreted widely, then it could be a vision and motive for not only spiritual transformation, but comprehensive transformation of Ukraine,, which it could then extend to all of Europe..
If Ukrainian Protestants were previously known as much for their activity in missions as for their passivity in politics, then recently mission and politics, theology and social responsibility were integrated into a holistic vision of responsible and influential Christianity. According to Anatoliy Denysenko, Maidan became a symbol of the return of the Church into politics with a more balanced and deeper understanding of its own responsibility. He says,
EuroMaidan divided Christians into those who advocated European values, and those who were against them. Maidan is uniting all Christians who support universal Christian values. Maidan is a concept which unites all who care about the future of our country. On the one hand, the Church must be apolitical in the sense that it cannot join any political movements. On the other hand, the Church must be active politically in the sense that it cares about the situation in the country.
In spite of some contradictions, all the above mentioned approaches and interpretations set the socio-political framework which embraces a wide range of Protestant missionary and social activity. In this wide sense the word “mission,” as used in evangelical churches, consists not only in solidarity with the protest or the Christian adaptation of this protest (direction to a non-violent and constructive channel), but also in the future transformation of ‘the society of protest’, a transition from protest to a peaceful life, participation in laying a new ideological foundation of a pro-European and pro-Christian Ukrainian identity at the same time. The more that Protestants will be Ukrainian the more Ukraine will be Protestant. The more that Protestants will be European the more Ukraine will be European. Europeanization without a Protestant ferment is no more than strong secularism and weak freedom. The Ukrainian Protestants can unite within themselves the vitality of traditional Christianity, European civilization and reformational dynamics. There is a hope that Protestants will show more unity in responsibility for the future of their country and formation of a new Ukrainian society, than in their attitudes regarding authority and protest.