![No Empathy, No Truth]()
No Empathy, No Truth
Regarding William Yoder’s “Commentary”
By Michael Kuznetsov
Dr. William Yoder, representing the interests of the Russian Baptist Union, came to the defense of Russian policy regarding Ukraine.
In his mailing on March 18th, 2014 he criticized the Ukrainian Maidan protesters and their defenders for not being democratic enough, and not waiting for the next elections, but instead seizing power and provoking the secession of the Crimea.
Additionally, Yoder compares Ukraine’s claims to the Crimea to a former spouse, who was never actually legally married, but after splitting up claims a right to the other’s belongings. Crimea was given away by Khruschev illegally in 1954, therefore no one owes Ukraine anything.
Justifying Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine, Yoder criticizes Ukrainian church leaders who have come to the defense of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of their country. He corrects of the vice president of the Ukrainian Baptist Union, Valery Antonyuk, and states that Kiev Protestants have no right to talk about their country’s integrity because the eastern part of the country wants to be part of Russia.
He also commented on the “illegal” interim government of Ukraine and acting president Oleksandr Turchynov, a Baptist, who is supposedly hurting the reputation of Baptists in Russia. William Yoder defends Yanukovych’s regime from accusations of cruelty by saying, “Was Yanukovich’s administration more despicable than Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge?” It seems that all regimes any less despicable than the Khmer Rouge must be acknowledged as fully democratic.
But the height of cynicism from Yoder’s side was his criticism of a Christian organization for supporting the family of Alexander Khropachenko, who was killed by a sniper on the Maidan. Yoder believes that this is evidence of one-sided sympathies. Yoder suggests equal assistance for the families of police who lost their lives (who killed over 100 Maidan activists and injured hundreds more), in order to show a non-partisan and peacemaking front. And because some of the ministry’s leaders took a clear stand on the side of the unarmed protesters instead of the armed killers, Yoder accused them of criticism of Russia and anti-Russian viewpoints. However there is a distinction between disagreement between Russia’s policy, which is natural for the civilized world, and truly unacceptable Russophobia.
The commentary of Dr. William Yoder is a mix of naïve faith in the authority of Russia, loyalty to his employers, and lack of understanding in the sphere of politics, history, and culture. You cannot talk about peacemaking while avoiding the truth and failing to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim, right and wrong. Peace can only be achieved after truth – acknowledgement of and repentance from crimes committed. Therefore the comments of William Yoder should have begun with an acknowledgement of the obvious fact of Russian intervention, without which everything written is a manipulation of facts. But what is even more noticeable and sad is his lack of empathy and sympathy for the tragic events in Ukraine. It is a bad sign – without empathy you cannot hope to come to the truth, let alone achieve peace.
Condolences for the Dead on Both Sides
————————————————————
Thoughts regarding the struggle in Ukraine
Commentary
M o s c o w – One could attribute the current crisis in Ukraine to the lack of sympathy for democratic practice. Repeated fisticuffs in Ukraine’s parliament were one indication of that deficit. And why was it not possible for the protestors on Maidan Square to wait for upcoming elections? They had been set for March 2015, then moved forward to December 2014. Was one too uneasy regarding the possible outcome? Henry Kissinger noted in his article for the “Washington Post” on 6 March, that East- and West-Ukraine had never gotten around to appreciating compromise. Both parties “have not been willing to share power”. For a while, the Eastern party was on top, then the Western one. Under Yanukovich, the East was on top, but EuroMaidan inverted the power structure once more. So the East responded by splitting off the Crimea. Which brings us to the next crisis: East-Ukraine.
In the German magazine “Der Spiegel”, ex-German chancellor Gerhard Schröder conceded on 9 March that lopping off Crimea from Ukraine had been a clear infraction of international law – as had also been the case in Kosovo. He sees it as multiple-layered illegality: The “power grab” on Maidan was illegal as well as the resulting independence drive in Crimea. One injustice caused the next. I believe Russian Christians now celebrating the apparent return of Crimea to the fatherland dare not forget the unfortunate chain of illegalities which caused it.
The West has every cause to beat its own breast. Is it proper to demand that one half of a profoundly divided nation take sides at the expense of the other half? Schröder stated in “Der Spiegel”: “I ask myself if it was correct to force a culturally divided nation like Ukraine to choose between association with the EU and a customs union with Russia.” It was this either-or lternative which finally capsized the ship. Kissinger one again: “Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other would lead eventually to civil war or break up.” In early March he was still of the opinion that Ukraine should attempt to fulfil the role of a bridge between East and West.
Only the Eastern military bloc was abolished after 1990. That’s at the core of the continuing division between East and West, which has now come home to roost in Ukraine. The West decided to create a European security net against – and not with – Russia. That has consequences.
I find the explanation of a Moscow Baptist helpful: He compared the presentation of Crimea to Ukraine on 19 February 1954 with a modern-day wedding ignoring the need for a marriage contract. In the early goings, the groom promises his beloved heaven and earth. But when the time for a divorce rolls around, the man suddenly demands that a portion of his gifts be returned. Some reports claim the presentation of Crimea to Ukraine was brought about by the self-serving conniving of Nikita Khrushchev. Precisely during that month, Politburo members were engulfed in a power struggle and the future General-Secretary hoped to curry favour among the Ukrainians by presenting them with a token gift. Who would have thought, that 60 years later a divorce would be imminent?
The political orientation of Protestants
Even the most conciliatory statements from the leadership of Ukraine’s largest Baptist union exhibit a clear political preference. A helpful statement on 24 February from Valery Antonyuk, the leading vice- president of this union, reads: “We supported the nation’s demand to put an end to the tyranny of the authorities and repressions by the police.” Yet this “nation” is divided. Kiev’s Protestants speak of “Ukraine”, yet usually they are speaking only in terms of West- and Central-Ukraine. Those truly concerned about national unity would express themselves differently.
Russians have the impression that West-Ukrainians can only think in terms of their own side. Demands out of Kiev that Russians form forces opposed to Putin reminds me of life in the former East Germany. Westerners would say: “You must raise your voices, you must protest against the misdeeds of your government!” Easterners would respond: “What, don’t you have a few issues yourselves? Have a look at Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. Let us take care of matters in the GDR ourselves. We live here and it’s our necks that are on the block – not yours.”
More than a few Protestant articles in the West are euphoric regarding the naming of Alexander Turchinov (Oleksandr Tyrchinov in Ukrainian) as Acting President of Ukraine. Turchinov occasionally preaches in a Baptist congregation in Kiev. Billy Graham’s “Decision” magazine stated on 6 March: “God is mightily at work in Ukraine”. Yet Russia’s faithful are more sober regarding developments: A Baptist heading a coup-instigated “illegal” government with at least five far-right ministers does not make for great Baptist PR in Russia. Russia’s tiny Baptist flock is worried about the long-term consequences.
But is it really the Baptists and Protestants who are calling the shots in Ukraine? In the British “Globe and Mail” on 8 March, Olga Bogomolets, who attained acclaim as a doctor attending to Maidan’s casualities, explained the reasons for her distance to the Kiev government. She accused the new government of having brought very few “new faces” into play. Turchinov of course belongs to the “old faces”: For 20 years he served as the right-hand-man of the oligarch and politician Yulia Timoshenko.
Possible moves forward
Would you permit a non-prophet to prophesy? The “Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists” and Russia’s other larger Protestant denominations will not be going to bat for the new Kiev government at the expense of Putin’s administration. And this is not primarily because they fear Vladimir Putin, but rather because they don’t recognise any clear moral superiority on the part of the Kiev government. And this is the case even though Russians are clearly in-the-know regarding the local sins and shortcomings of their own government.
A very wordy statement from the RUECB on 13 March (see text below) reads: God “accepts them all as his children. Let us not claim that God is on our side and against the others! God is above and beyond our petty preferences and loyalties. In the political sphere, God is not for one side at the expense of the other.”
In short: Despite the unavoidable contradictions in our political assessments, being one in Christ has consequences which express themselves in public life. What could some of these consequences be?
1. The heated atmosphere at present results in belligerent and unbridled language. In a release from „Christianity Today“ on 24 February, Turchinov speaks of the “unprecedented cruelty and brutality of the dictatorial regime”. Was Yanukovich’s administration more despicable than Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge? Cries of “fascism” are volleyed to-and-fro. A prominent Crimean election placard essentially stated: “Nazism or a Free Crimea”. But such exaggerations happened on both sides of the barricades and traveled at least as far as Washington.
We need linguistic disarmament. Only a cautious and respectful diction can point the way towards peace.
2. Putin-Bashing does not sit well on a Christian frame. Henry Kissinger stated it differently: “The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” Ex-chancellor Gerhard Schröder is lambasted for being a friend of Putin. But should not every Christian have at least a few friends who would not be welcome at most Pentagon parties? That could serve the cause of peace; more than a few contacts could be struck up via the Schröder-Putin connection.
3. The webpage of the Wheaton/Illinois-based “Peter Deyneka Russian Ministries” appeals for donations to the family of 26-year-old Alexander Khrapachenko. This young Baptist from Rovno was tragically killed during the shootings on Maidan. But why should the mission not also start an appeal for the bereaved family of a policeman? The death total of roughly 90 including something like 15 state-supported policemen. That would underline the non-partisan peacemaking character of the Gospel. This would allow the mission to better fulfil the task stated in the page’s heading: “Healing and Reconciliation in Ukraine”.
This would also demand a significant change in course for the mission. A primary representative of this mission in Ukraine, the young Baptist professor Michail Cherenkov, is struggling mightily in cyberspace for EuroMaidan and against Russia. Is “Russian Ministries” willing to voluntarily abandon its ministry on the ground in Russia for the sake of this? That would be a great pity, for RM has done good work in gathering the new, young “evangelical intelligentsia” in the former USSR. Irpen near Kiev has until now functioned as a kind of Wheaton and think-tank for the evangelical movement in Russia and beyond. Is that role now over? It is difficult to reconcile myself with such an eventuality.
Yet the political-strategic aspect dare not remain central. More important is the question: How does God think and what is he expecting from us? In the interview with “Decision”, Alexander Turchinov quotes Romans 8:31: “If God is for us, who can be against us?” Yet the RUECB statement sounds otherwise: God is impartial and finds himself beyond the battle. He does not struggle for West-Ukraine against East-Ukraine — nor vice versa.
Of course: Acting President Turchinov is in need of our prayers! Can he at least keep the remainder of the country (without Crimea) in one piece? Can he defend moderate forces against the onslaught of the radical right? His task is not an enviable one.
A note regarding myself: Why do I formulate relatively political commentaries on the present danger? I’m being asked to do this – most Russian Protestants will remain silent for psychological, educational and linguistic reasons. Which doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking. I hope that Western Christendom will notice the existence of other, alternative perceptions. I believe that recognition is vital for future co-existence. We can make progress only if we first of all understand how things really are.
William Yoder, Ph.D.
Moscow, 18 March 2014
Mobile for Yoder when in Moscow: +7-916 874 5868
Journalistic release #14-02. 1.653 words.
