The Church's mission in the times of change: Reflections of His Beatitude Volodymyr
The Metropolitan warned against both nationalism, which sees autocephaly as a symbol of statehood, and imperial thinking, which equates church unity with subordination.
At the XVII International Scientific and Practical Conference "Spiritual and Secular Education: History of Relations, Modernity, Prospects," held at the KDA, Metropolitan Viktor of Khmelnytskyi presented a report on the position of His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) on the canonical status of the UOC.
In light of constant manipulations by various religious figures regarding the views of the late Primate of the UOC on autocephaly and relations with the ROC, we invite you to read the text of Metropolitan Viktor's report with minor reductions.
On November 23 of this year, it will be 90 years since the birth of His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) of Kyiv and All Ukraine. His life and ministry have become defining for the present Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The 22-year primatial service of His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr as the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church requires thorough and attentive study and comprehension. Some aspects of his activity attracted the attention of researchers even during his lifetime and continue to arouse interest today.
Now we would like to offer you the strategic vision of the Church's development expressed by His Beatitude. These are thoughts on key issues of church and public life that were relevant during his lifetime and remain significant today.
Let's start with the question that concerns everyone the most today – the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
During the primacy of His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr, it was viewed from two opposing positions in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate: either as a refusal of autonomous jurisdictional existence or as a product of political conjuncture, conditioned by the proclamation of Ukraine's independence. In this context, the Primate had to consistently defend the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as self-governing and independent in its administration – a status that was only officially confirmed by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2009, since this highest governing body of the ROC had not convened since 1990.
Thus, evaluating the Definition of the Bishops' Council and the 1990 Statute, the Metropolitan pointed out that they became a point of balance between two poles — preserving unity with the Ecumenical Orthodox Church through the Moscow Patriarchate and recognizing the internal subjectivity of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Moreover, the acquired status was the "result of careful and comprehensive discussion of initiatives expressed by the Ukrainian episcopate." He emphasized that this was not a temporary arrangement, but a stable form of ecclesiastical existence, which proved to be quite effective because it was able to unite people from different regions and political orientations.
Defending the acquired status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, its Primate consistently advocated that it should be understood not as a compromise political form, but as a natural revival of the historical traditions of the Kyiv Metropolis, as a return to the ancient norm of church life in Ukrainian lands. He traced the historical line of succession between the ancient organization of the Kyiv Church and the modern status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Baptism of Rus’ through the Synodal period, and then through the restoration of church autonomy in 1918, although it failed to be firmly established during the Soviet era. For this reason, he rejected interpretations of the 1990 documents as a "product of political circumstances," suggesting instead that they should be seen as a natural revival of the traditions of the canonical existence of the Church in Ukrainian land.
As a theologian and Primate, Metropolitan Volodymyr resolutely opposed transferring the problem of church status into the political plane. He warned against both nationalism, which sees autocephaly as a symbol of statehood, and imperial thinking, which equates church unity with subordination.
In particular, at the Bishops' Council of the ROC on June 24–29, 2008, the Metropolitan pointed out: "On the one hand, some claim that autocephaly is destructive for church unity. However, such a thought, brought to its logical conclusion, would mean that there is no church unity between the Local Orthodox Churches that have autocephalous status, which fundamentally contradicts the Orthodox teaching about the Church. On the other hand, there is an opinion that autocephaly is the only and non-alternative way to solve the Ukrainian church problem."
Addressing the delegates from the UOC at the Local Council of the ROC in 2009, the Primate again addressed this topic: "It is quite obvious that even today there is no unanimity among the Ukrainian church people regarding the optimal canonical status for our Church. Therefore, any final decisions on this issue, I believe, will be premature now, but this does not mean that we should abandon open all-church discussion of the indicated problem."
Thus,
the task of Metropolitan Volodymyr was to preserve and affirm the status of the UOC obtained in 1990, but he considered its further improvement fundamentally possible and open to further resolution.
In his speech at the Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw in 2008, Metropolitan Volodymyr outlined three conditions under which the discussion and development of the canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should take place: firstly, exclusively within a theological framework, avoiding any politicization; secondly, in the context of overcoming the schism within Ukrainian Orthodoxy; and thirdly, in agreement with the Kyriarchal Church and the fullness of Orthodoxy.
The thoughts expressed clearly reveal Metropolitan Volodymyr’s pastoral stance, which shaped his work as Primate: first and foremost – healing the Church’s consciousness, and only then – institutional decisions. In his "Spiritual Testament", he summarized his efforts in this direction:
“Principally refraining from taking any ideologically conditioned position, we have tried all this time to adhere strictly to ecclesiastical priorities: remaining in Eucharistic unity with the Ecumenical Orthodoxy and preserving unity and conciliarity in the internal life of the Church.”
The question of the Church’s status cannot be fully separated from the problem of the schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. In Metropolitan Volodymyr’s reflections, this issue occupies a central place. He convincingly pointed out that the schism is not merely an organizational conflict but a profound spiritual tragedy that harms not only the Church’s image in the world but also the very inner unity of the faith:
“The schism, which is undoubtedly the result of an abuse of freedom, at the same time restrains the fullness of the manifestation of that very freedom.”
Metropolitan Volodymyr opposed two extremes: the politicization of church unity and reducing it to formal procedures. He insisted that the path to overcoming the schism lies through repentance, dialogue, and theological agreement. The Church should avoid both legal maximalism, which rejects any communication with schismatics, and relativism, which equates canonical and non-canonical structures. In both cases, the church position turns out to be weak and vulnerable.
One of the central factors for achieving unity, according to the Metropolitan, was a return to the Eucharistic understanding of the Church. In his view, unity is not an external organizational form but a living communion in the Sacraments. “Christ in the Eucharist gives us the strength to overcome all divisions,” he said.
Metropolitan Volodymyr believed that in order to achieve the unity of the Church’s people, it was necessary to eliminate the ideological confrontation imposed by politicians.
He called to leave behind both thoughtless subordination to the "empire" and aggressive nationalism. Instead, he proposed the path of repentance and forgiveness, through which the vicious circle of grievances and claims can be broken.
However, the Vladyka was a realist. He saw that the divisions within the Church were being exacerbated by the involvement of state authorities and political forces. Overcoming this influence, he believed, was the most important condition for ecclesiastical reconciliation. For him, the unity of the Church was a matter of faith, not political calculation, and it could not be “imposed” from above or from outside through decisions by authorities or formal agreements.
The Role of the Church in Society
An important focus of Metropolitan Volodymyr’s reflections was defining the place and role of the Church in social and political life. In his reasoning, he consistently adhered to a position that can be called the “mutual freedom of the Church and the state”. This stance is based on an understanding of the specifics of each institution and its respective ministries. According to him, the Church and the state represent different dimensions of human existence: the spiritual and the civic. Each has its own sphere of responsibility and its own logic of action. The Church is devoted to the salvation of the soul, while the state ensures order and justice in earthly life. Mixing these spheres, in the Metropolitan’s view, always leads to negative consequences for both sides.
The Primate resolutely opposed both caesaro-papism and papo-caesarism – two extremes where either the state subordinates the Church or the Church seeks to take the place of power. He emphasized that the Church should not become an "agent of power" and cannot claim secular prerogatives. Its goal is to be the "conscience of the people", a spiritual guide, not a political force.
At the same time, the Metropolitan opposed the secularist ideology that religion should be solely a private matter and that the Church must remain silent on issues of public importance. According to him, such an approach deprives society of its moral dimension and turns the public sphere into a space of bare pragmatism.
Metropolitan Volodymyr insisted that the Church cannot withdraw from social and cultural life. Its task is not to administer or manipulate, but to nurture conscience, to testify to higher values, and serve as a source of moral guidance. The preaching of the Gospel, Christian values, and diakonia – all these are legitimate forms of the Church’s presence in society, and attempts to restrict this presence contradict the very essence of its calling.
He sharply pointed out specific legal gaps that placed the Church in a dependent or discriminatory position. Firstly, the absence of legal entity status for the Church as an institution, which deprived it of the ability to fully own property and participate in legal relations. Secondly, the failure to restitute church property confiscated by the Soviet authorities. Thirdly, the undervaluation of theological education and the legal inequality of church educational institutions and their students. Fourthly, the unresolved status of ministry within military and penitentiary institutions.
For Metropolitan Volodymyr, the Church was not only the guardian of faith but also the moral foundation of society. He advocated expanding cooperation between the Church and the state in fields such as education, mercy, charity, and social policy, seeing this as a path toward societal consolidation and the spiritual revival of the nation.
Beginning his ministry during a period of tension between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the authorities, Metropolitan Volodymyr moved from a defensive stance to a measured dialogue. Starting under conditions of strong rejection of the Church by the state, he later acknowledged that “the interference of government bodies in church life has weakened”. An interesting observation he made was that Ukraine’s religious pluralism acts as a kind of “safety valve” against the church becoming state-controlled, as religious diversity compels both the Church and the state to maintain mutual distance.
Overall, Metropolitan Volodymyr’s position on Church-state relations is balanced, deeply theological, and at the same time pragmatic. It combines an awareness of the Church’s spiritual autonomy with a readiness for social ministry and partnership for the common good. His concept is one of “freedom in cooperation”, where the Church remains the conscience of the people, and the state is the guarantor of that freedom.
In connection with Church-state relations, one more important point should be mentioned.
Metropolitan Volodymyr consistently opposed what he called “political Orthodoxy” – attempts to use the Church as a tool for political influence.
He warned that this phenomenon is very dangerous because it alienates people from faith, fuels political passions, provokes disobedience to the hierarchy, and sows discord within the Church. The Primate highlighted that the Church must remain outside of politics, serving as a space of unity for all: “If the Church in its life is unable to manifest the image of the Kingdom of God, then it is not truly the Church.”
Another profound theme in Metropolitan Volodymyr’s reflections is the problem of secularization. In his view, this is not merely a socio-cultural phenomenon but an existential challenge that shapes the spiritual character of the modern world, and Ukraine in particular. He lamented that despite the numerical growth of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Ukrainian society remains far from genuine church life. Most of his compatriots remain nominal Christians.
Unlike the superficial understanding of secularity as merely the “separation of Church and state”, Metropolitan Volodymyr saw secularism as a break in the connection between a person and the Creator. In this, he identified the main anthropological threat of the era – the attempt to replace living faith with cultural ritual or psychological experience. According to him, modern consciousness increasingly gravitates toward an “ephemeral faith, devoid of marks of ecclesiality” when a person “believes but does not belong”, or “belongs but does not believe”.
Metropolitan Volodymyr analyzed the phenomenon of consumerism with particular sharpness, calling it a “new paganism”. A person who has lost their spiritual core begins to seek meaning in things, replacing communion with God by fetishizing commodities. He saw this not only as an economic issue but, above all, as an anthropological catastrophe: the consumerist ideology, which reduces human life to comfort and pleasure, destroys the image of God in man. Therefore, the Church’s task is not to condemn but to heal: “to restore a person’s spiritual vision” and to reveal the illusory nature of the goals dictated by sin.
As a counterbalance, Metropolitan Volodymyr proposed a program of internal mission – the establishment of theological departments at universities, active cooperation of the Church with the media, and the development of pastoral ministry oriented to the modern language and needs of people. At the same time, he emphasized that no social or missionary witness would be successful if church life did not correspond to its theological calling, and if parishes remained closed off within ethnic or ideological barriers.
Speaking about communication with Ukrainian society, the Primate pointed to the special role of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This role arises from the fact that Ukraine exists within two civilizational orbits: Eastern and Western. These two poles carry the threat of division and fragmentation, especially when coupled with deliberate political efforts. However, despite their differences, these two regions are united by Christianity, which stems from the Baptism of Saint Prince Volodymyr. The Church serves as a center around which both communities can consolidate. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is the only church structure present in both spheres, which enables it to provide this synthesis within its folds.
Attitude toward European integration
In the last years of Metropolitan Volodymyr’s ministry, the issue of Ukraine’s European integration came to the forefront. In this regard, the Primate highlighted both positive and negative aspects. He pointed out that joining the European Union involves a complex distribution of power between national and supranational institutions, which reduces the risk of power being concentrated in the hands of one individual and desacralizes political authority. In his assessment, the European model promotes greater stability, transparency, and efficient governance, as well as diminishes political risks historically inherent to post-Soviet societies.
At the same time, European integration carries spiritual risks. The main danger, according to him, is the temptation of relativism. European societies, he noted, value freedom of choice more than truth itself. Formal values and compromises become predominant, while the ontological ideals of faith are pushed to the background. In this situation, the task of Eastern European peoples, particularly Ukrainians, is to remind Western culture of deeper, fundamental values that go beyond freedom of choice, especially through the revival of Christian traditions and an enlightening mission.
Because more and more Ukrainian citizens were living outside Ukraine, Metropolitan Volodymyr regarded care for the diaspora as an important direction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s ministry. This issue was not only pastoral but also ecclesiological and cultural, concerning the preservation of the spiritual identity of Ukrainians beyond their Homeland. For most of them, faith remained the primary bond with their native land.
Summing up this review, we can assert that the life and ministry of Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan) stand as an example of the combination of theological depth, pastoral wisdom, and a vision for the state. His legacy has shaped the modern face of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Even today, his reflections largely retain their relevance. For believers who grew up under his primatial omophorion, they can serve as a guide in the search for harmony between tradition and modernity, spirituality and social responsibility.
