Will the ‘Mother of Churches’ Bring Peace to Ukraine?

A meeting between Theophilos and Vladimir Putin is, reportedly, expected before the end of June.  The news caught many by surprise—and yet, on further reflection, he is in some ways the obvious choice.

The choice of an Orthodox bishop to serve as mediator is, perhaps, a natural one.  Orthodoxy is the single largest religion in both Ukraine and Russia.  What’s more, Orthodox leaders in both countries have also sought to frame this war in religious terms.  Both speak of the sacred duty to defend one’s country—in the Russians’ case, from subversive Western ideology; in the Ukrainians’ case, from the Russians.

For any peace effort to succeed, this theological dimension cannot be ignored or bypassed.  It must be engaged directly.  When Theophilos III speaks of the sanctity of human life before the icon of the Resurrection at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he speaks from within the same theological tradition that all Orthodox Christians—and, indeed, all Christians—can understand.

Now, one might ask why Pres. Trump didn’t approach the Ecumenical Patriarch, the First Throne of Orthodoxy.  The answer is quite simple.  Ecu. Patr. Bartholomew I would not be considered a neutral third party.  His All-Holiness is a strong supporter of the Ukrainian effort.  He also blessed the 2018 “Unification Council” in Ukraine, which gave rise to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU)—a body the Russians consider to be schismatic.

Theophilos III continues to recognize the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) and has even forbidden OCU clergy from serving in the Holy Land.  This may seem to make Jerusalem “pro-Moscow.”  However, only three canonical Orthodox churches recognize the OCU; the other 14 continue to support the UOC.  So, Jerusalem’s position does not necessarily make it “pro-Moscow.”  Many of the churches that back the UOC have squabbled with the Russians before—the Polish Orthodox Church, for instance.

Indeed, Jerusalem maintains close ties both to Constantinople and Moscow.  And despite supporting the UOC, Theophilos has even maintained friendly relations with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, which (despite its name) is aligned with the OCU.

The “Jerusalem gambit” may seem like a long shot.  For all its ancient prestige, the Patriarchate governs a relatively small flock.  Its political leverage is spiritual and moral, not institutional.  Yet this is precisely what makes Jerusalem such a useful intercessor.  

The Church of Jerusalem has served as a neutral ground for inter-Orthodox dialogue for centuries, precisely because its holiness is recognized by all sides and controlled by none of the major “power blocs” within Orthodoxy.  The Holy Sepulchre itself is shared (albeit awkwardly) among Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Latin Christian communities.  If any institution has true muscle memory for managing deep, intractable, seemingly-irresolvable disputes among Christians, it is Jerusalem.

Whether the Mother of Churches can do for a continent what she has spent two millennia attempting in a single city remains, of course, to be seen.  But in a hideous, fratricidal war that has pitted Orthodox Christians against one another—and has placed Orthodox Christianity itself at the very center of a geopolitical catastrophe—it may be fitting that the oldest Orthodox throne in the world be given a chance to speak.

Read also