Patriotism vs uranopolitism? The ROC clergy at a crossroads
A polemic between the Patriarch and a priest on the subject of earthly and heavenly patriotism took place at a meeting of the Moscow clergy. We analyze the arguments of both sides.
On 11 February 2025, a video from a meeting of the clergy of the Moscow Metropolis stirred the Orthodox media sphere. In the footage, Patriarch Kirill responds to the words of Mozhaysk priest Alexei Shliapin, who stated that “a priest should lead people to the Kingdom of Heaven, not engage in patriotism.” The Patriarch retorted: "How wonderful. This is the first time I’ve heard such a thing. Father, are you by any chance from Western Ukraine? Go sit down and seriously reflect on what you just blurted out."
Critics of the Primate of the ROC were outraged: how could an experienced Patriarch of a Local Church publicly claim that this was the first time he had heard of the primary mission of a pastor of Christ’s flock formulated by the Lord Himself? How could he refer to words about the Kingdom of Heaven as “blurting out”?
Supporters of the Patriarch were quick to defend him. Their arguments can be summarized as follows:
- The Patriarch’s words were taken out of context;
- The phrase “the first time I’ve ever heard that” was sarcasm, meaning “Do we really need you to tell us this?”
- Who are you to criticise the Patriarch himself?
Soon, an extended version of the dialogue between the priest and the Patriarch emerged, allowing for a more thorough analysis of the incident without taking anything out of context and drawing more well-founded conclusions.
Fr Alexei Shliapin and uranopolitism
The cleric who spoke at the clergy meeting is a follower of the well-known priest and missionary Daniil Sysoev, who was murdered in 2009. The presumed motive for the killing was revenge for his outspoken criticism of Islam. In the final years of his life, Fr Daniil preached uranopolitism, which he defined as follows:
"Uranopolitism (from the Greek uranos – Heaven, polis – city) is the doctrine asserting the supremacy of divine laws over earthly ones, the primacy of love for the Heavenly Father and His Kingdom over all natural and sinful human desires. Uranopolitism teaches that the highest kinship is not that of blood or national origin, but kinship in Christ. It holds that Christians have no eternal citizenship here on earth but seek the coming Kingdom of God, and therefore cannot give their hearts to anything earthly. In this mortal world, Christians are but wanderers and strangers, and their true homeland is in Heaven."
There is nothing in this definition that contradicts the New Testament, yet attitudes towards this doctrine among both its supporters and opponents often reach extremes. Some reject love for one's country and people altogether, while others elevate patriotism to the status of Christianity’s supreme virtue. Fr Alexei Shliapin is a proponent of uranopolitism and has repeatedly spoken in its defence. His words at the clergy meeting were nothing more than voicing this doctrine, albeit not a particularly well-phrased one.
The context of the dialogue between Patriarch Kirill and Fr Alexei
Eparchial clergy meetings are held annually in almost all eparchies, and the Moscow Eparchy (now a metropolis), governed by Patriarch Kirill, is no exception. During the meeting, a final document was discussed and adopted, covering various issues: support for large families, thanks to priests going to the frontlines, the fight against abortion, and opposition to neo-paganism. Notably, a separate section expressed support for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). The document also contained a special note of gratitude to Patriarch Kirill for his efforts in "emphasising the need for continuous self-improvement among the clergy and their active participation in preserving and strengthening the traditional spiritual and moral foundations of Russian society".
Fr Alexei Shliapin’s remark was in response to the 11th point of the final document, which stated:
"11. The year 2025 has been declared by the President of Russia as the Year of the Defender of the Fatherland. The assembly calls upon the clergy of the metropolis to strengthen love for the Motherland through prayer and preaching, particularly in connection with the celebration of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War."
However, the context of this dialogue extends far beyond the eparchial meeting itself. It is much broader. When Russia launched its aggressive war against Ukraine in 2022, the leadership of the ROC had three possible responses.
The first option was to condemn the actions of the state authorities. Aggressive, expansionist war (particularly when, as we see, Russia has been seizing Ukrainian territories) is a mortal sin. This stance is rooted in the New Testament, Church tradition, and the writings of all the Holy Fathers who have addressed the subject of war. The Church calls for the defence of one’s own country, but only in a defensive war. One may argue endlessly that the West, the United States, or Ukraine – perhaps, with others – were preparing to attack Russia, and that Russia merely launched a pre-emptive strike. However, the undeniable fact remains: Russia attacked Ukraine, not the other way around. Similarly, some historians present numerous arguments that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler, but the fact remains – Germany invaded the USSR, not vice versa.
Throughout the history of the Russian Church, there have been precedents where hierarchs dared to rebuke those in power. For example, the Holy Martyr Philip (Kolychev), Metropolitan of Moscow, who in the 16th century excommunicated Ivan the Terrible from Communion and condemned him for the Oprichnina. Or the Holy Martyr Arsenius (Matseyevich), Metropolitan of Rostov, who in the 18th century effectively anathematised Empress Catherine II for seizing Church property and closing monasteries ("anathema upon those who offend churches and monasteries").
Of course, to act in such a way requires great faith and courage. However, the modern leadership of the ROC had other options.
The second option is to call on all sides to seek peace, express condolences for the deaths of civilians, and urge adherence to international humanitarian law during armed conflicts. In other words, the Church could have taken a neutral, peacemaking stance. Such a position would have been understandable and justifiable to everyone, including the Russian government, as the Church has historically adopted similar positions in most comparable conflicts. This would have been even more logical given that the ROC considers Ukrainians to be part of its flock. However, this option was also rejected.
The third option is for the ROC to side with the aggressor and justify its crimes using theological language. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened.
The Russian Orthodox Church gave its full support to the so-called "Special Military Operation" (SVO). This led to the emergence of an entirely baseless theory that Russia is "the restrainer", preventing the world from descending into chaos. The West was declared "Satan", the embodiment of global evil. Patriarch Kirill proclaimed that those who die in the war against Ukraine would have their sins forgiven. The clergy began calling on people to go to war and lay down their lives "for the Fatherland”. The Patriarch even stated that one should receive the sacrament of Baptism in order to achieve victory in war, among other such claims.
The Gospel commandments – "Thou shalt not kill”, "Do not lie", "Love your enemies", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” – were pushed far into the background. They did not fit the modern agenda and were preferred not to be mentioned.
Patriarch Kirill and the ROC leadership raised the banner of patriotism so high that they actually began to treat it as a supreme Christian virtue. This is the true and broader context of the dialogue that took place at the eparchial meeting in Moscow. Without this context, it is impossible to fully understand the discussion itself.
What Fr Alexei Shliapin said
For some reason, Fr Alexei took issue with the fact that the words "Fatherland" (Отечество) and "Motherland" (Родина) were capitalized in the final document. He approached the microphone and said the following:
"It doesn’t seem quite right that in church documents, the words ‘Fatherland’ and ‘Motherland’ are written with capital letters, as if there is some kind of reverence for these earthly concepts. For a Christian, the true fatherland and homeland is the Kingdom of Heaven. These are purely earthly notions. For example, even the word ‘faith’ – when referring to the Orthodox faith – is written with a lowercase letter. These terms should also be written in lowercase in official documents, as they are common nouns, not proper ones."
It is difficult to assess this argument from the perspective of Russian language philology, but dissatisfaction with capitalization is hardly a strong argument in a serious theological debate about an important ecclesiastical issue. This was probably not the best point to start with, as Fr Alexei went on to make a much more significant critique of contemporary trends within the Russian Orthodox Church:
"I simply wanted to express my disagreement with the increasing emphasis on patriotism in church documents and in the life of our Local Church in general. The duty of a priest is to lead people to the Kingdom of Heaven, not to engage in patriotism."
At first glance, this seems like a self-evident statement. Yet, paradoxically, such self-evident truths are often pushed into the background. They are "forgotten", assumed to be obvious but merely theoretical, irrelevant to the present moment. That is why these truths must not only be reminded of but also defended with serious theological arguments so that it does not look like bravado or a desire to be stand out. In essence, however, Fr Alexei’s statement is absolutely correct, and given the dominance of patriotism in church discourse amid the war in Ukraine, it is particularly relevant today.
What the Patriarch and Moscow clergy said in response
Here is the opening line of Patriarch Kirill’s response: "How wonderful. This is the first time I’ve heard such a thing. Father, are you by any chance from Western Ukraine? Go sit down and seriously reflect on what you just blurted out."
Let’s analyze this carefully. Patriarch Kirill has held high-ranking positions in the Church for decades. He has delivered numerous public speeches to a wide range of audiences and is fully aware that every word he utters will be scrutinized under a microscope. That is the fate of people in his position: there’s no getting around it.
Whether appropriate or not, naïve or not, well-put or clumsy, Fr Alexei Shliapin simply repeated words that are found multiple times in the New Testament, appear in one form or another in the teachings of nearly all the Church Fathers, and are recorded in the final documents of numerous ecclesiastical councils throughout history. They are written in every textbook on pastoral theology. So, what exactly was wrong, unusual, or laughable about what Fr Alexei said?
Calling the priest’s words a 'blunder' sounds like mockery of the sacred. And even if the Patriarch meant it as a joke, it is, in fact, a sacrilegious one. There is a phenomenon known as professional desensitization when, for example, a psychiatrist stops perceiving a patient’s pain and emotions, reducing them to mere "components". The next stage is internal professional jokes that can shock outsiders. Many professions and fields have this. But there are some spheres (including the Church) in which such jokes are, to put it mildly, impermissible, because they cause irreparable harm to people’s souls, serve as a temptation to them, and turn people away from faith.
But in this case, it wasn’t just sarcasm. Although the Odintsovo Eparchy (where Fr Alexei serves) stated that it would not punish him, it assured that would do some “explanatory work” with him. Whether it was the result of this ‘work’, or whether the secular authorities decided to "help”, Fr Alexei’s troubles didn’t end there. The day after the dialogue with the Patriarch, Fr Alexei Shliapin’s website stopped working. Then reports surfaced that law enforcement officers had visited him, and social media began branding him as an enemy of the nation and the Church.
Now, let’s focus on one particular remark by Patriarch Kirill: "Father, you are not from Western Ukraine by any chance?" Why Ukraine? And why Western Ukraine specifically?
It seems the point is the following. Patriarch Kirill began his church career in the late 1960s. This was a time when, following the Second World War and the accession of Western Ukraine to the USSR, a large number of Orthodox communities became part of the ROC. These communities had not had the same experience of living under Soviet rule as those in Russia, meaning they were far freer in expressing their convictions. Many Western Ukrainian priests and monks moved to Russia, enrolled in the seminaries, academies, and monasteries that had reopened after the war, and took up various church positions. Their 'free' worldview and spiritual mindset differed significantly from those of the 'Great Russian' clergy and monastic community, who had endured Leninist and Stalinist repressions and had been living for decades under forced submission to the secular authorities, including in matters of patriotism, which at the time was still Soviet in nature.
And, of course, the current war cannot be ignored. Today, for the Russian consciousness, Western Ukraine represents the land of the 'Banderites', the embodiment of the 'Nazism' that, according to official rhetoric, Russia is supposedly fighting against. Consequently, anyone who, in any form, speaks out against Russian patriotism may automatically be viewed as harboring 'Banderite' ideas hostile to the Russian Federation.
That Western Ukraine is also home to the Pochaiv Lavra, that it is home to thousands of Orthodox Christians who endure immense pressure to defend their faith, seemingly remains at the periphery of the ROC clergy’s awareness. At the very least, the unanimous approving laughter and applause from hundreds of priests following the Patriarch’s mention of Western Ukraine suggest precisely this.
The clergy’s laughter was sincere; it was a natural expression of their agreement with the head of the ROC. It reflected what these priests truly felt and thought.
Justification of Patriarch Kirill’s position
Having seated Alexei Shliapin, Patriarch Kirill elaborated further on his stance, stating:
"If the Church were to take the position you propose, if it had taken such a position, then during the times of persecution against the Church, during the bloody repression, and later, at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Church did not recall its own dire situation. Instead, it did everything to inspire its people to fight. And what did this lead to? To a radical change in the Church’s position in our country. The Church cannot be separate from its people, the Church cannot be irresponsible regarding the fate of the country. Many would like us to stay out of this, I assure you – many. But if we take that path, we will be rejecting the legacy of figures such as Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, St Sergius, and a whole host of our saints who were patriots and defenders of our Homeland – both in the literal and the spiritual sense. Thank you."
A number of inconsistencies are immediately apparent in this phrase.
Firstly, there is a great difference between the defensive war waged by the USSR against Nazi Germany and the aggressive war that Russia is currently waging against Ukraine. Accordingly, the Church’s stance towards a defensive war and an offensive war should be fundamentally opposite, regardless of which countries are involved. Otherwise, this is sheer hypocrisy.
Secondly, the fact that the ROC supported the Soviet people and government in the fight against Nazism does not mean it did so to gain favor with Stalin’s regime. It was a natural response by the Church to armed aggression against its people – it simply could not have acted otherwise.
Thirdly, there was no radical change in the Church’s position. Yes, Stalin released the surviving bishops and priests from the camps and permitted the opening of a few seminaries and monasteries. However, the overall attitude of the Soviet state towards the Church remained negative and, in fact, worsened over time. After Stalin came Khrushchev, who famously promised to "show the last priest". Under him, church closures occurred on an even larger scale than under early Stalin. For example, in 1958, the Russian Church had 13,414 churches, but by 1965, that number had nearly halved to 7,551. Can this really be called a "radical change in the Church’s position", as the Patriarch claims?
Finally, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles, nor church canons impose upon the Church the responsibility for the fate of any state. Christ was crucified precisely because He refused to engage in the political life of his country and to lead the Jewish uprising against Roman rule. This was the immediate reason for his execution, leaving aside, for now, the theological explanation of his death for the sins of humanity. When questioned by Pontius Pilate, Christ said: "My Kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). How then can the Church of Christ assert otherwise?
Moreover, in support of his stance, Patriarch Kirill cites the names of saints – Sergius of Radonezh, Alexander Nevsky, and Dmitry Donskoy. Yet the Church did not canonize them for their military exploits but for their personal faith and piety. To justify today’s war by pointing out that these saints defended their Homeland (rather than waging war against other countries) is nothing but speculation on the saints’ spiritual exploits.
Notably, Patriarch Kirill did not cite any arguments from the Holy Scriptures, church canons, or the teachings of the Church Fathers. This is understandable because they directly contradict his words.
What Patriarch Kirill’s words reveal
One might consider Patriarch Kirill’s statement that he is "hearing it for the first time" that pastors should lead their flock to the Kingdom of Heaven rather than engage in patriotism as a poor joke. One might interpret it as an effort to put a clergyman in his place for daring to instruct the Patriarch. But the problem seems far deeper than that. This is a tragic misunderstanding of the true purpose of the Church – a perception of it not as the manifestation of God’s Kingdom on Earth, but as a social institution concerned with earthly affairs (in this case, victory in an aggressive war). The laughter and applause from the assembled clergy indicate that this mindset is widely shared among them.
And yet, in the Gospel, Christ speaks some truly frightening words: "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" (Matthew 7:21–23).
Are these words relevant to the present situation? Let each person decide for themselves.
