Those who have read my previous articles for the Kyiv Post know that—as the grandson of a Ukrainian patriot and Orthodox priest born in Rohatyn in 1887 and a grandmother whose parents came from Lemkovyna—I support Ukraine’s political and ecclesiastical independence from Moscow unreservedly. I can barely contain my disbelief at seeing events unfold for the Church of Ukraine that must have seemed unimaginable in my grandfather’s most cherished dreams until the day he died in 1972. Few things in my 64 years have moved me as deeply as the full video of the young Metropolitan Epiphanius’ enthronement at Kyiv’s St. Sophia Cathedral three weeks ago.

Yet as an Orthodox Christian who has studied theology both independently and academically for well over 40 years, I do not shy away from offering criticism when I find it necessary to do so. This has generated a measure of animus toward me among some Orthodox Christians in Ukraine, namely, in the Мережа Відкритого Православ’я discussion group on Facebook (Merezha Vidkrytoho Pravoslav’ya, Open Orthodoxy Network), one of the places where I post my Ukraine-related articles. Some of the members there regard me as a foreigner and an interloper with no right to an opinion on what happens in the Ukrainian Church.

That many people disagree with me comes as no surprise. This is a mark of healthy dialogue within the Church. That a brother Orthodox and fellow Ukrainian (despite my very un-Ukrainian name!) should be summarily dismissed because he lives outside of Ukraine is more worrisome—especially when he supports Ukraine’s political independence and the autocephaly of its Church as wholeheartedly as I do.

In our effort to make the Church’s specialized language understandable to the general public, we reporters and commentators—myself included—often substitute “independence” for autocephaly. Yet I noted recently on these pages: “Autocephaly is often mischaracterized as ‘independence’ in a modern Western sense of the word; however, in principle if unfortunately not always in practice, every autocephalous Church remains accountable to the whole Orthodox Church for the correctness of its doctrine, worship, and governance.”

Properly understood, autocephaly does not give the Church of a specific place license to do whatever it wants, but the right to administer its internal life free from the undue interference of other autocephalous Churches—such as, but not limited to, the election of its own bishops and Primate—but always in accordance with the Orthodox Church’s universal canons and principles.

Given the long history of anti-Ukrainian sentiment perpetuated by Russian narratives and their proponents, it should perhaps come as no surprise if some Ukrainians react oversensitively to “outside” criticism. Yet when criticism is proffered in a spirit of brotherly love for the purpose of holding one another to account for the purity of our shared faith, it is quite natural for Orthodox Christians in one place to express their interest and concern for the well-being of the Orthodox Church in every other place. This care for one another is enshrined in the words of our liturgical worship. For instance, we hear in the third petition of the Great Litany at the beginning of every church service: “For the peace of the whole world, for the welfare of the Holy Churches of God, and for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord.”

In this light, I find it very encouraging to learn of a remarkable petition produced in Ukraine and entitled “10 Theses for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (10 тез для Православної Церкви України). An English translation of the full text is available at Orthodoxy in Dialogue, the blog that I manage.

In summary the 10 theses call for the following: true conciliarity among the Church’s hierarchy, clergy, and laity; Eucharistic renewal and the renewal of parish life; the active involvement of the laity in the Church’s life; liturgical translations in contemporary Ukrainian; the promotion of Christ-centeredness and biblical literacy in the Church; the repudiation of “Byzantine symphonia” as a paradigm of church-state relations (see my articles here and here on these pages); transparency, accountability, and unity in diversity; active social ministry and a voice of social conscience in Ukrainian society; the reformation of church education; and a spirit of dialogue and openness with Orthodox Ukrainians who remain in the Moscow Patriarchate Church, with other Christian faiths, and with non-Christian religions.

While I might not agree with every detail set forth in the foregoing theses, those who composed the document and the rapidly growing number of signatories demonstrate a genuine hunger and thirst for a Church that is truly alive in and for the time and place in which she finds herself, and not a museum of antiquities. For this I offer the petitioners my hearty applause and unstinting support. I encourage all of my readers to join me in signing the petition here. (Note for those who do not read Ukrainian: Ім’я, прізвище  = first and last name; Професія [за бажанням] = Profession [optional]; Бажаєте отримувати новини по цьому маніфесту? = Do you wish to receive updates on this petition?; Так, Ні = Yes, No; Ваші коментарі = Your comments.)

If autocephaly can be construed as “independence” of a sort, for the Church of Ukraine let it be independence from the long history of Russia’s imperialist church structures. Let it be the freedom to explore and embrace a more authentically Orthodox ecclesiology—a theology of the very essence of the Church which affirms and actualizes the active role of all the baptized.

The 1917 Council of Moscow called for essentially all the same things as the Ten Theses. Tragically, a century later the Russian Church looks nothing at all like the Council’s optimistic vision for her life. Might it be a divine paradox that the Ukrainian Church should serve by humble example to beckon the Russian Church to revive the very best of Russian Orthodoxy?

Giacomo Sanfilippo is an Orthodox Christian of Ukrainian and Lemko descent on his mother’s side, a PhD student in Theological Studies at Trinity College in the University of Toronto, and the founding editor of Orthodoxy in Dialogue. He holds a BA in Sexuality Studies from York University and an MA in Theology from Regis College, both in Toronto, and is an alumnus of the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto. Earlier in life he completed the course work for the MDiv at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary near New York City. Orthodoxy in Dialogue has an extensive Ukraine section in its Archives by Author.