Nicholas Denysenko

In the early twentieth century, a sense of national consciousness began to develop among Ukrainians. In the previous chapter, we reviewed the events and figures who contributed to the evolution of the nascent Ukrainian national identity. Churchmen were included among the intellectuals who sought the creation of an independent church alongside a sovereign state. Events in the history of the Kyivan Metropolia became commemorative markers contributing to the formation of a movement for ecclesial sovereignty, accompanied by the nineteenth century phenomenon of the formation of autocephalous churches in newly-formed nation-states in the debris of imperial collapse. 1 The Ukrainian intellectuals who adhered to the national dream were aware of the formation of autocephalous Churches in Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria. The Bulgarian example was a cautionary tale, since the movement for autocephaly introduced the unfortunate tendency for churches to exclude anyone who was not ethnically Bulgarian from membership and participation. The Constantinopolitan synod of 1872 condemned this policy as ethnophyletism, the heresy of limiting participation in ecclesial life to people of an exclusive national identity. 2 The Ukrainians who dreamed of an autocephalous Church sought to excise their notion of a unique religious identity from the amalgamation of identities that had formed during the period of Kyiv's annexation to the Russian empire.

A new liturgical office for the bereaved. Grief has no expiration date - the people of God are commissioned to comfort and serve all mourners, especially widows, widowers, and orphans. This service calls the faithful to pray with the bereaved, but also to continue to bear witness to their loss.

This article assesses the liturgical reforms attributed to Alexander Schmemann and New Skete monastery. A close examination of these reforms demonstrates that they were primarily pastoral attempts to continue the work inaugurated by the Moscow Council of 1917–18 (Schmemann), and to restore monastic stewardship of venerable liturgical traditions (New Skete). The author suggests that it would be more fruitful to approach the question of renewing tradition on the basis of the goals of liturgical renewal, which happen to be common to both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, namely liturgical theosis, or divinization of the people through liturgical events. The twentieth century witnessed a series of liturgical reforms in many of the Christian churches. A generation of older Catholics is likely to remember the Mass of Pius V and can speak, in general, to the changes they have experienced in the liturgy, especially given the number and impact of reforms seemingly unleashed by Vatican II. Orthodox Christianity did not have a Vatican II to implement liturgical reform, but the experience of Orthodox Christians is likely to mirror changes in the Roman liturgy. Indeed, one can identify changes common to both the Orthodox and Catholic churches: the transition from Latin, Greek or Slavonic to the use of the vernacular in liturgy, a general increase in the frequency of receiving Holy Communion, and notable changes in the people's participation in and the clergy's leadership of liturgical celebrations. Much of the extant scholarly literature on these changes argues that they depend upon either ressourcement or aggiornamento, or perhaps both, an updating of the church on the basis of retrieving tradition. Certainly, there are scholars, theologians and pastors who dissent from the school of progressives and argue that tradition was not retrieved with these reforms, but rather unnecessarily resuscitated in deliberate acts that disrupted the organic development of the liturgy in both the Latin and Byzantine

The Orthodox Church is known for its liturgical aesthetics. The rich liturgical cycle consists of several liturgical offices celebrated throughout the year, complete with icons, chant, polyphony, and powerful ritual gestures. The Divine Liturgy is the external symbol of the typical Orthodox liturgy. The liturgical celebration profoundly shapes the inner and outer lives of the liturgical participants, as liturgy is a constant and repetitive rehearsal of dying and rising to new life. This article examines the most salient patterns and instances of dying and rising to new life in Orthodox liturgy and concludes with a reflection on how engaging this process might have a greater impact on the daily lives of Orthodox Christians today. The Orthodox Church projects many images to the public. In Western society, Orthodoxy is known for its ethnic dimension, especially when parishes host festivals with native foods, music, and dancing and invite the public's participation. The public sneaks a glimpse into Orthodoxy at performances featuring world-renowned composers such as Rachmaninoff and Pärt and local art exhibits displaying galleries of icons. The music and iconography belong to Orthodoxy's liturgical tradition, which continues to retain select aspects of the structure and aesthetical performative style of its Byzantine and Russian imperial past. These public images of Orthodoxy do not communicate the fullness of its inner and outer liturgical life, however. Deeper and regular participation in the ordinary weekly worship of Orthodoxy, the Sunday Divine Liturgy, discloses the Orthodox Church as a community of faithful that participates in Christ's death in preparation for eternal life. In this essay, I argue that Orthodox liturgy initiates the faithful into a process of death in Christ and dying to themselves, preparing them for eternal life. Baptism establishes this process of death and dying, and the pattern is repeated in the regular celebration of the Divine Liturgy, and complemented by participation in other liturgical offices. I begin by showing how Baptism makes death and dying normative for the Orthodox Christian. Then, I explore the Divine Liturgy to show how death and dying to sin are necessary to receive the gift of communion in the Holy Spirit, which is a foretaste of life shared with the Triune God. The analysis of the Divine Liturgy includes consultation of preparation for Holy Communion and the prayers recited after Communion, and I will draw from these to demonstrate how the pattern of death and dying appears throughout the Orthodox liturgical tradition. This analysis applies to both the inner and outer lives of Orthodox Christians, and this essay concludes with a reflection on the challenge of applying the discipline of liturgical death and dying to the challenges of relationships Orthodox Christians confront in daily life. 1. Orthodox Liturgy: Baptism as Death in Christ in Preparation for Eternal Life The initial participation in Christ's death and dying to sin begins with Baptism in Orthodox liturgy. It might seem absurd to begin with the obvious, since the primary theological motif underpinning Baptism is the paschal mystery of death and resurrection. The primary reason for beginning with Baptism is the inauguration of the ritual pattern of death and dying and rising to new life. It is this

In this paper, I will introduce examples of words that define identity from the sacramental heritage of the Byzantine Church. I will also draw from some of the most frequently used liturgical texts to introduce the words and textual passages that have the most impact in defining Orthodox Christian identity. After a brief comparison of Orthodox sacramental identity with the employment of words for identification in contemporary Ukrainian religious polemics, I will present recommendations for the revision of identity in contemporary religious discourse for the sake of peace and reconciliation.

An unpublished paper, in-progress, presenting the political theology of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA during the Cold War. The article gleans the political theology from the construction of St. Andrew Memorial Church, the dedication of the Taras Shevchenko Monument in Washington, DC, and the celebration of the Millennium of Rus'-Ukraine in 1988.

A summary of liturgical innovations practiced by the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of 1921-1936. The liturgical practices are limited to the years 1921-27. The essay should be of interest to those who follow liturgical renewal, ecclesiology, political theology, and the Byzantine liturgy.

After briefly reviewing the history of movements for autocephaly in Ukraine and the traditional arguments favoring and opposing that status, the author argues that autocephaly today - especially in the context of the phyletism of the so-called Russian World ideology promoted by Moscow - must be approached in a new way. Autocephaly must no longer be seen as simply the outgrowth or even the "right" of ethnic nation-states and a political ideology of sovereignty transferred into the ecclesiastical sphere. Instead, autocephaly here is the result of maturing fruits and the gift of the Holy Spirit, seen in sacramental and ecclesiological practices, including: apostolic succession, preaching to all the nations, communion with the saints, ecumenical dialogue, theological scholarship, and social service and political witness coherent with the eschatological vision of the gospel rather than with the short-term political goals of the nation-state. On all six counts, and more, Ukrainian Orthodoxy gives much evidence of already having achieved autocephaly, the formal recognition of which can only strengthen both Ukraine and Orthodoxy.

Bohdan Bociurkiw Memorial Lecture, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Edmonton, Alberta, February 11, 2015.

Since 2009, leaders of the Russian and Ukrainian churches have composed narratives defining the features of their ideal civilizations. The current turbulence afflicting Ukraine has shaped the revisions of these narratives and elicited forceful counter-narratives in a series of statements defining what it means to belong to a given Church. In this lecture, Nicholas Denysenko will present the development of the varying narratives through the lens of the rhetorical questions, "who is to blame?" and "what is to be done?" to demonstrate how Church leaders depict the "other" church communities in an informational battle. The lecture occurs in four parts. In the first part, Denysenko foregrounds the presentation by summarizing the Russian religious narrative known as the Russkii Mir. The Russkii Mir is a pastoral initiative developed and launched by Patriarch Kyrill in 2009 that defines the Moscow Patriarchate as an Orthodox civilization cultivating the traditional values of Holy Rus’, embracing the core peoples of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, and open to anyone whose values cohere with the Russkii Mir. The Russkii Mir holds a privileged place for Ukraine and Kyiv, and is presented as an Orthodox alternative to the temptations presented by globalization, a place where one can embark on the path to sanctity. Part 2 presents a revision of the Russian narrative which defends the Russkii Mir in the wake of the Maidan and ensuing war in Ukraine. Both Patriarch Kyrill and Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev contributed to the revision of the narrative by asserting that illegitimate Church groups both caused the violence in Ukraine and posed a serious threat to the safety and freedom of the loyal adherents to the Russkii Mir in Ukraine. The Russian hierarchs appealed to the highest episcopal authorities in the catholic and Orthodox Churches to intervene on behalf of the canonical Orthodox in Ukraine, and in so doing, blamed the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (UGCC) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP) for preaching hatred. Part 3 presents the first Ukrainian counternarrative communicated by the UOC-KP. The UOC-KP responded to the Ukrainian crisis externally and internally, by equating Russian President Vladimir Putin with the biblical figures Cain and Pharaoh, and calling upon their own adherents to refrain from acts of corruption, which would place them in the company of the biblical figure Judas Iscariot. The UOC-KP’s counternarrative assigns blame to Putin and the Kremlin, depicts the UOC-KP as a communion of sanctity, and describes the Russkii Mir as a false promise resulting in slavery.  Part 4 presents the second Ukrainian counternarrative belonging to the UGCC. The UGCC’s counternarrative proclaims the Church’s absolute solidarity with all Ukrainians regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or language, and defines the UGCC as a Church of new martyrs who are prepared to be with the people until the end, like the Heavenly Hundred of the Maidan. The lecture concludes with a reflection on how Church leaders might adopt a course of rapprochement to model peace for civil society. The primary step is for Church leaders to adopt narratives that call upon all of their people to repent without reference to the sins of the perceived antagonists, so that enemies might be converted into friends.

This essay presents a critical review of Schmemann's liturgical legacy and outlines a proposal for renewing his liturgical theology. Following a brief introduction, the essay examines the state of the Eucharistic revival attributed to Schmemann by looking at the state of liturgical practice in the Orthodox Church, with special emphasis on America. The essay then looks develops the core of Schmemann's legacy and asserts that his application of Eucharistic revival was aimed to renew ordinary parish life, a pastoral project related to his efforts in establishing an autocephalous Church in America. The penultimate section of the essay addresses a crucial problem: the tendency to evaluate liturgical reform by observing the forms of ritual practice. This component of the essay's argument states that limiting evaluation to observation of ritual forms promotes the proliferation of subjective views that privilege one or another liturgical style on the basis of aesthetical preference. Here, we will explore the complexities of liturgy as the bearer of multiple ecclesial identities as a problem interrupting the process of renewing Church life, with attention to Schmemann's liturgical eschatology. The agenda for renewing Schmemann's liturgical legacy concludes the essay. In this section, we will outline an agenda for restoring liturgical renewal by outlining the steps required and obstacles that need to be confronted in the twenty-first century milieu. Outline of the essay:

In this essay, I will examine the dynamics of intra-Christian division currently unfolding in Ukraine. My aim is to develop a working thesis which has two parts: first, to illuminate what is at stake for global Orthodoxy when we examine the Ukrainian Church situation. The theological task is not to resolve a minor disruption, but to contribute to a lasting peace. The second part is to view the contemporary Ukrainian picture through the lens of the modern history of Orthodox Ukraine. My conviction is that an honest historical examination can yield patterns enriching understanding, which is a sine qua non for our common theological task. My essay has three parts. The first part summarizes the intra-Christian divisions in Ukraine through the lenses of ecclesial legitimacy and identity. This section draws from selections of narratives developed and communicated by the three most influential Churches in Ukraine: the Moscow-Patriarchate (UOC-MP); the Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP); and the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church (UGCC). I will illuminate the diverse perspectives on each Church's ecclesial legitimacy and identity through primary documents and external analyses. The second part of my presentation connects the present images of ecclesial legitimacy and identity with their historical antecedents, drawing primarily from late-19 th century and twentieth century sources. The final section of the essay discusses the patterns contributing to the situation in light of the task of contemporary Orthodox theology.

A work-in-progress of chapter 6 of my proposed manuscript on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Religious Identity in modernity. In this chapter, I attempt to demonstrate how the collapse of the USSR and the legalization of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church impacted religious identity within the Orthodox Churches of Ukraine.

Throughout the history of Christianity, the Eastern Churches have produced influential and creative theologians who responded to the fundamental questions of faith and urgent crises of their times. Eastern Christian thought resounds not only in Christian dogma on Christ, but responds to timeless human vices such as greed, corruption, and genocide. This course is not merely a playlist of the greatest hits in theology, but an opportunity to explore literature that gives readers a vision of the landscapes and environments that shaped the ideas of some of Eastern Christianity’s greatest thinkers. Modern theologians occupy most of the course’s time, but we begin with works from late antiquity that represent the core values of the Eastern Church to show how those principles developed through history and remain relevant up until the present day. The course will read selections from the ascetical and hagiographical literature of late antiquity and the medieval age to demonstrate how thinkers responded to wealth and greed by preaching humility and radical conversion. Spiritual pilgrimage, the process of acquiring the Holy Spirit, seeking union with Christ, promoting spiritual renewal through modernization, responding to bigotry and war, and learning how to read the world are topics explored by medieval and modern thinkers. The course draws from classical theologians such as Basil of Cappadocia, Andrew of Crete, and Nicholas Cabasilas, and modern figures such as Sergius Bulgakov, Maria Skobtsova, and Elizabeth Behr-Sigel. Class time features discussion of the readings. Students will submit reflection and analysis papers assessing their engagement of the featured thinkers.