A warning for the OCU: Where negative identity leads

A church built on negation cannot be the Church of Christ. Photo: UOJ

Whenever people come together as a group, one question inevitably arises: “Who are we?” What binds us together? That is true of any community – including a religious one.

The confession of the Apostle Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), became the rock on which the Church was established: “And on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…” (Matt. 16:18). In terms of social psychology, this is a positive identity: we are those who believe in Christ as the Son of God, in His death, Resurrection, and redemptive sacrifice. The foundation of the Church is not negation – “we are not Jews, not pagans, not someone else” – but affirmation: “We are those who follow Christ.”

There are no groups whose self-awareness is one hundred percent positive or one hundred percent negative. Yet in nearly every case, one can see which type prevails. Let us recall who in the Gospel built his sense of self on negation and was condemned for it. It was the Pharisee in the parable, who said: “God, I thank You that I am not like other men – extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector…” (Luke 18:11). He then went on to list his virtues, but the core of his self-image remained negative: “I am not like them.”

What is the OCU’s identity built on?

If we look closely at what the OCU grounds its self-awareness in, we will of course find a positive component there: “we are Orthodox,” “we are heirs of Prince Volodymyr.” But none of that distinguishes the OCU from other Ukrainian confessions. The UOC says the same. So did the UOC-KP. Even the Greek Catholics claim to be heirs of the “Baptism of Volodymyr.” That is why the OCU is forced to construct its identity through negation: “we are not Moscow Orthodoxy,” “we are not the Russian world,” “we are not the UOC.”

Here are several typical examples from the OCU’s official website.

From a statement of the OCU Synod dated May 16, 2022: “The independence of Orthodoxy from Moscow’s influence is an integral part of Ukraine’s victory in the current war.”

From a sermon by Serhiy (Epifaniy) Dumenko on May 28, 2023: “We thank God for the rebirth both of the Ukrainian Church and of a new, genuine Ukraine <…> from which the yoke of the ‘Russian world’ and totalitarianism has been cast off.”

From a sermon by Serhiy (Epifaniy) Dumenko on September 4, 2025: “The de-occupation of our native Church from the age-old enslavement of the ‘Russian world’ <…> But as we free ourselves from the Russian yoke, we are also freeing ourselves from these spiritual bonds.”

From a sermon by Serhiy (Epifaniy) Dumenko on January 31, 2026: “To free ourselves from the yoke which the ‘Russian world’ laid upon the soul of the Ukrainian people and upon our Local Orthodox Church for more than three centuries – this is a good and blessed thing.”

In all four statements, the central note is not the affirmation of one’s own faith, but recoil from the image of an enemy.

The hallmarks of negative identity

The traits described below can emerge in any intergroup division. But where identity is built on negation, they arise almost inevitably – and in a far more pronounced form.

Hostility. After World War II, the British social psychologist Henri Tajfel conducted a series of experiments that demonstrated something striking: real conflicts of interest are not necessary for intergroup hostility to appear.

When a group says, “we are not them,” it does not merely distinguish itself from “them” – it turns “them” into an enemy. No actual conflict of interests is required. The two groups may be able to coexist peacefully. But negative identity does not stop at simple differentiation. It almost inevitably slides into hostility. That is exactly what we see in the OCU’s attitude toward the UOC.

Radicalization. The American Psychological Association notes that such hostility does not remain static – it develops into radicalization. We can see this in attitudes toward the UOC: both the OCU leadership and those in government who associate themselves with the OCU, as well as so-called activists, keep escalating both their rhetoric and their actions.

A chronic sense of threat. From hostility and radicalization grows yet another feature – a constant feeling of danger. This produces distorted perceptions of the other group: even neutral actions are interpreted as attacks and provoke sharply negative reactions.

Collective narcissism. Social psychologist Agnieszka Golec de Zavala of the University of London defines it as “an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief in the greatness of one’s group.” Researchers of this phenomenon argue that group narcissism points to deep internal insecurity. The less confident a group is in its own worth, the louder it demands recognition and the more aggressively it reacts when that recognition is denied.

In other words, the OCU, at least on a subconscious level, senses its own canonical deficiency, its inadequacy as a Christian body, the dissonance between the commandments of God and the actual behavior of its members, and so forth. But instead of leading to a rethinking of its spiritual condition, this produces group self-exaltation, glorification of its leadership – for example, the plainly undeserved paeans sung to Epifaniy Dumenko – and the idealization of the group itself: “we are super-patriots,” and so on.

And there the vicious circle closes: narcissism intensifies hostility toward the other group, while hostility further inflames narcissism.

Beyond these traits, social psychology identifies others that typically accompany negative identity: black-and-white thinking, oversimplification of reality, intensified stereotyping, and the endless search for enemies.

The future of negative identity

The future of groups – including religious ones – that build their identity on negation follows directly from the development of the traits described above. The greatest danger for such groups lies in the possible disappearance of the very subject against which their identity was constructed. In our case, if one imagines that the UOC were suddenly to cease to exist or to lose much of its public significance, the OCU would face what social psychologists call an identity crisis.

The formula “we are not them” works only as long as “they” exist. Once “they” disappear, the natural question arises: “then who are we?”

A worldview built on resistance to an enemy will, once that enemy vanishes, inevitably begin searching for an enemy within. What follows is schism and internal struggle: a hunt for “traitors,” “apostates,” “the insufficiently loyal,” or “the insufficiently radical.” It resembles a tug-of-war: if one side suddenly lets go of the rope, the other side loses its balance and falls.

As Sigmund Freud once observed, the fiercest conflicts do not arise between groups that are radically different, but between groups that are largely alike. He called this the “narcissism of small differences.” When the external enemy disappears or weakens to the point that it is no longer a meaningful rival, radicalization turns inward. Tiny distinctions suddenly become exaggerated beyond measure. Put simply, a group that has built its identity on negation begins to devour itself.

Conclusion

An identity built on negation always lives on borrowed strength – it feeds on the image of an enemy. But the moment that enemy disappears or weakens, such a group is left alone with itself. And if by then it has not filled itself with positive substance, it is left facing nothing but emptiness. That is when it becomes clear that negation cannot replace faith, truth, or genuine unity.

Today, the OCU’s negative identity is directed against the UOC and the “Russian world.” But the logic of social psychology is relentless: tomorrow it will inevitably turn inward, against the OCU itself. That moment will come when the chief question is no longer “Whom are we against?” but “Who are we at all?” And to that question, negative identity has no answer – just as the Pharisee’s prayer had none.

Read also