“Sustaining the Fatherland in Exile: Commemoration and Ritual During the Cold War”

Nicholas Denysenko

Abbreviations

UAOC=Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (1921-1936)

UGCC=Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church

UOC=Ukrainian Orthodox Church (USA)

UOW=Ukrainian Orthodox Word, periodical of UOC

UW=Ukrainian Weekly

Introduction

This essay examines the political theology of the Ukrainian churches in the United States during

the period of the Cold War (1947-1991). The arrival of Ukrainian immigrants in the United

States after World War II resulted in the adjustment of life in the Orthodox and Greek Catholic

churches. Many of the immigrants carried the bitter memories of religious persecution, the

violence and death of the Holodomor, and the failed aspirations of Ukrainian sovereignty in the

wake of the Soviet retention of Ukraine and absorption of Western Ukrainian territories as part

of the Yalta agreement. The consolidation and stabilization of Ukrainian Church life in the

United States coincided with their reception of American freedom. Immigrant Church leaders

captured the opportunity to assess the Cold War through the lens of liberation: they articulated a

political theology of martyrdom through the lens of freedom. In this essay, I will present three

events in the Ukrainian émigré community that were inspired by the Cold War and contributed to

the articulation of this political theology of martyrdom: the construction of St. Andrew Memorial

Church in South Bound Brook, New Jersey, from 1955-1965, the establishment of the monument

to Taras Shevchenko in Washington, DC, in 1964, and the celebration of the Millennium of the

Baptism of Rus’ in 1988. My essay will explore the following primary features of the Ukrainian

émigré community’s political theology: the power of commemorating contemporary martyrdom

and suffering; the struggle for liberating the fatherland from Soviet tyranny; America as a

symbol of freedom and a space bearing a sacred mission for seeking liberation, with Moscow as

the symbol of tyranny and totalitarianism; and the tension between lament and thanksgiving

within the evolution of the political theology.

Background

Ukrainians have immigrated to the United States since the eighteenth century.1 In the early

twentieth century, Orthodox Ukrainians established their own churches in the United States

based on ethnic identity. In the United States, Archbishop John Theodorovich presided over the

UAOC from 1924 onwards.2 This Church was viewed by other members of the global Orthodox

ecclesial community as illegitimate and schismatic because they consecrated their own hierarchy

without the participation of bishops, thus forsaking the precious mark of churchliness universally

known as apostolic succession. Despite this stigma of illegitimacy, the Church provided a place

for immigrants to gather, worship, and socialize in their native language while observing the

traditions of the fatherland.3

1 For an overview of Ukrainian immigration to the United States, see Myron Kuropas, The Ukrainian Americans: Roots and Aspirations, 1884-1954 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991). 2 The classical study of the autocephalous Church in Ukraine is by Bohdan Bociurkiw, “The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, 1920-1930: A Case Study in Religious Modernization,” in Religion and Modernization in the Soviet Union, ed. Dennis J. Dunn (Boulder, CO: 1977), 310-47. The history of the UAOC is presented in great detail, including several reproductions of official UAOC documents, appeals, and letters from individual clergy in Osyp Zinkewych and Olexander Voronyn, eds., Мартирологія Українських Церков, vol. 1 (Baltimore: Smoloskyp Publishers, 1987). For the primary documents of the All-Ukrainian Council of October 1921 which resulted in the establishment of the UAOC see P.S. Sohan, Serhii Plokhy, and L.V. Yakovleva, eds., Перший Всеукраїнський Православний Церковний Собор УАПЦ, 1921 (Kyiv: M.S. Hrushevsky Institute of Ukrainian Archeography and Source Studies, 1999)3 Archbishop Theodorovich’s canonical status became a problem for the Ukrainian Church in Western Europe and the United States. His ordination was liturgically corrected in 1950 by the exarch of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. For more discussion of Theodorovich’s role in the Church mergers after World War II, see Bohdan Bociurkiw, “The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in West Germany, 1945-50,” in The Refugee Experience: Ukrainian Displaced Persons after World War II, ed. Wsevolod W. Isajiw, Yury Boshyk, Roman Senkus (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1992), 168-9.

In the meantime, the mother Church in Ukraine was suffering from Stalinist persecution and

liquidation. The Soviet regime’s fierce persecution of the Moscow Patriarchate opened a dimly-

lit path for the emergence of reformed Orthodox bodies to challenge the hegemony of the

patriarchal Church, which posed a serious ideological threat to the regime’s socialist agenda. The

Soviet regime permitted the formation of alternate Orthodox Church bodies to rival and

eventually supplant the patriarchate; the most infamous example of this Church is the so-called

“Living Church” or “Renovationist Church.”4 The UAOC was like the Living Church in its

adoption of a radically liberal and progressive ecclesial platform, which included the possibility

of married bishops, and a democratic structure of ecclesial administration in which the bishops

had little power.5 The UAOC was quite popular among the Ukrainian people, largely on account

of its openly populist approach and its condemnation of the Tsarist regime, but its overt

Christianity and accentuation on evangelization of the public constituted a threat to the anti-

religious agenda of the Bolshevik regime. The Bolsheviks began to harass the UAOC in 1924,

just three years after its establishment; the Bolsheviks liquidated the UAOC in 1936, leaving

Ukraine without any viable Orthodox presence. Perhaps more notable is the deliberate

eradication of ecclesial intelligentsia from Ukraine, as many clergy and bishops were murdered

as enemies of the people, especially during the dekulakization and collectivization campaign of

1929-1933, which devastated Ukraine with an orchestrated famine that claimed the lives of five

to seven million people.6 The famine was the climax of a series of hostile events orchestrated by 4 On the renovationist Church, see Edward Roslof, Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolution, 1905-1946 (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002). 5 For helpful distinctions among Orthodox Ukrainain groups, see Bohdan Bociurkiw, “Ukrainization Movements within the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies ¾, Part 1. Eucharisterion: Essays presented to Omeljan pritsak on his Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students (1979-1980), 92-111. 6 The classic study of the Soviet policy of collectivization which resulted in the Holodomor is by Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). Recently, Norman Naimark has argued that the Ukrainian famine was an act of genocide by Joseph Stalin. See Naimark, Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010). For a review of scholarship, see “After the Holodomor: The Enduring Impact of the Great Famine on Ukraine,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 30, nos.

the Soviet regime which resulted in the creation of a historical anamnesis of contemporary

martyrdom and gave birth to émigré political theology.

Germany’s invasion of Ukraine in 1939 changed the political and ecclesial landscapes

permanently. The natives joyfully greeted the invading Germans as their emancipation from

Soviet persecution. Orthodox Church life had already revived in the Church of Poland in regions

and cities such as Lutsk, Volyn’, and Kholm, where thousands of Ukrainians had revived

Ukrainian Orthodox Church life.7 The leader of the Polish Church, Metropolitan Dionysius,

essentially re-established the autocephalous Church by consecrating new hierarchs for Ukraine.

The arrival of these bishops coincided with Stalin’s newfound religious tolerance during World

War II, in his effort to rejuvenate patriotism to consolidate the people, and obtain the Church’s

support for the war effort and for peace following the war.8 In the midst of the chaos reigning in

Ukraine, the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches attempted to unite, but failed.

The end of the war and the Yalta agreement resulted in the expatriation of many Ukrainians to

the West, and many of the bishops and clergy of the autocephalous Church arrived in the United

States from the late 1940’s through the early 1950’s.9 In 1947, Bishop Mstyslav Skrypnyk was

one of these immigrants who settled in Canada. He came to the United States in 1950, and

established a merger of the Orthodox Ukrainians into one church led by Metropolitan John

Theodorovich.10

1-4 (2008). 7 See Voronyn, 89-94.8 See Dimitry Pospielovsky, The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia (Crestwood, NY: St. ladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), 285-7, and Philip Walters, “The Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet State,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol. 483: Religion and the State: The Struggle for Legitimacy and Power (January 1986), 138-40.9 See Bociurkiw, ““The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in West Germany, 1945-50,” 167-70.10 Ibid., 167-9.

Under the joint leadership of Metropolitan John Theodorovich and Archbishop Mstyslav

Skrypnyk, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA became an active and vocal critic of the

Soviet Union and its religious policy especially the Moscow Patriarchate, and advocated for

religious freedom in Ukraine. Metropolitan John led the Church until his death and 1971 and

Archbishop Mstyslav succeeded him, guiding the small Church through Gorbachev’s tenure as

leader of the USSR and its collapse in 1991. The new religious freedom facilitated by glasnost

and perestroika permitted the re-emergence of the UAOC in Ukraine, which elected and

enthroned Mstyslav as its first patriarch in 1990. By the time of his death in 1993, Mstyslav was

both a witness of contributor to the legal re-establishment of the UAOC and the UGCC in the

USSR (1989-91) and Ukraine (1991-93).

The UGCC had endured its own struggles in the early twentieth century. While Greek Catholics

under the Austro-Hungarian empire had flourished, the Tsarist regime attempted to eradicate

Greek Catholics from the Russian empire in the nineteenth century.11 The years between the

revolution and the Yalta agreement were turbulent for Greek Catholics, who witnessed to

numerous changes in political borders. When Western Ukraine was given to the Soviet Union in

the Yalta agreement of 1945, Ukrainian Greco-Catholics became subject to the same religious

persecution suffered by the Orthodox Churches. In 1946, a council was held in L’viv at which

the UGCC voted to liquidate itself and return to Orthodox under the jurisdiction of the Moscow

Patriarchate, a council whose legitimacy is dismissed almost universally.12 Greek Catholics

outside of Ukraine consolidated their position under leader such as Patriarch Josef Slipyj and

11 For an overview, see Robert F. Taft, “The Eastern Catholic ‘uniate’ Churches,” Cambridge Histories Online (Cambridge, 2008), 413-4.12 See the magisterial study of Bohdan Bociurkiw, The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Soviet State, 1939-50 (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1996), and Serhii Plokhy, “In the Shadow of Yalta: International Politics and the Soviet Liquidation of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church,” in Religion and Nation in Modern Ukraine, ed. Serhii Plokhy and Frank E. Sysyn (Edmonton and Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003), 58-74.

Ivan Lubachivsky, and vigorously sought their legalization and restoration in Ukraine. Thus,

Ukrainian Greek Catholic immigrants came to the United States bearing the dual disappointment

of the coerced liquidation of the UGCC and the failure of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army to

deliver sovereignty to Ukraine.

Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox immigrants came to the United States with multiple memories

and a variety of attitudes. One of the primary attitudes shared by both religious groups was a

strong distrust of the Soviet regime and its symbolic capital, Moscow. In the religious literature

of the émigré community, Moscow emerges as the primary antagonist, the place of the tyrant

who holds Ukraine’s freedom-loving people captive. In this vein, Moscow simply inherited the

role of St. Petersburg and the Tsarist regime which preceded the Soviet Union. Imperial Russia’s

anti-Ukrainian campaigns culminated with the imprisonment of Taras Shevchenko, Ukraine’s

nineteenth century poet who dreamed of his homeland’s independence. In the proceedings of the

1921 council of the UAOC, which asserted its independence from Moscow, a consistent pattern

of themes emerges where the Ukrainian Orthodox self-identify as former slaves who are fleeing

from the shackles of their captor, the Tsar and his servants. The cohort of Ukrainians who arrived

in the United States after World War II retained this identity, which had evolved to include the

recent memory of crimes against Ukrainians committed by the Soviets as the regime which

succeeded Imperial Russia and attacked notions of Ukrainian sovereignty and ecclesial

independence even more viciously.

The Construction of St. Andrew’s Memorial Church

From 1947-51, approximately 80,000 Ukrainians departed Austria and Germany for the United

States.13 Many of these Ukrainians joined existing Orthodox or Greek Catholic parishes or

13 Subtelny

formed new ones. Bishop Mstyslav Skrypnyk was one of approximately 30,000 Ukrainians who

settled in Canada; he came to the United States in 1950 and presided over the unification of the

two largest Orthodox Ukrainian Churches. Bishop Mstyslav became the primary administrator of

the newly-unified Ukrainian Church and was also the central figure behind the erection of St.

Andrew memorial Church in South Bound Brook, New Jersey.

St. Andrew Memorial Church is also known as the “Церква-Памятник” (“Memorial Church”),

an edifice that was designed to serve the needs of the entire Ukrainian Orthodox population in

the United States. In other words, the Memorial Church was more than just an edifice providing

for the liturgical needs of a suburban parish. The Church constructed the edifice to honor the

sacrifice of the Ukrainians who died in defense of their country, a church that proclaimed

Ukrainian fidelity to freedom in defiance of Soviet religious persecution.

The construction of the Memorial Church was the climax of a process of establishing a global

center for the UOC. The process commenced with the consecration of an administrative center in

Bound Brook, New Jersey, in 1952, just two years after the unification of the Churches. The

consecration of the Church center establishes the foundation for the political theology which was

developed primarily with the construction of the Memorial Church. In April 1952, the UOC

announced the forthcoming celebration of the consecration of the Church center. The theme of

the consecration was the “battle of the Christian world with the aggression of godless Muscovite

communism.”14 The Church leaders appealed to Orthodox Ukrainians throughout the United

States to gather in New Jersey under the protection of the Mother of God. The theme for his

inaugural event was the Mother of God’s protection of Orthodox Ukrainians in the past and

present, headed by the theme “Beneath your compassion, we take refuge, o virgin Birthgiver of

14 UOW, April 1952, 11.

God.” The Church communique fused the Mother of God’s patronage of Orthodox Ukrainians

with the battle against communism and the building of the memorial Church:15

The consecration of a space beneath the structure of the Memorial Church will take place

after the Divine Liturgy, which is to be a manifest sign of our respect for the memory of

our relatives and all of those who gave their lives for Christian truth and the will and

statehood of the Ukrainian people. The Church portion of the celebrations will conclude

with a prayer to the all-holy Mother of God and the common singing of ‘beneath your

compassion’.

The communique refers to the other program components, including “speeches of appointed

representatives from Ukrainian and American community-political life.” The speeches were

devoted to the “contemporary battle of the Christian world with godless Moscow and the matter

of liberating the Ukrainian people.”16 In the May 1952 issue of UOW, under the headline titled

“Great Feast,” the Church announced the preparation of an icon of the Mother of God: 17

The Divine Liturgy and other services will occur in the Church center itself among greens

and flowers, under the protection of the mother of God, with her beautiful icon near

completion. This icon will stand on the plaza the entire time, illuminated by reflectors.

The clergy and faithful will present their prayers before her on the day of our feast and in

the future.

The celebration scheduled for June 1, 1952 was disappointing because of heavy rain, which

forced the organizers to move the festivities to Washington high school nearby. The rain and

15 UOW, April 1952, 12. 16 Ibid.17 UOW, May 1952, 5.

venue change did not result in softened polemic, as Archbishop Mstyslav seized the opportunity

to encourage the people to support the building of the Memorial Church, an edifice to honor “our

ancestors and all of those brethren who died for Ukraine’s freedom and the freedom of the

United States of America.”18 At the conclusion of the festivities, the bishops distributed small

images of the Protection of the Mother of God to fifty-six people who had contributed monetary

donations for the building of the Memorial Church.19 The consecration of the Memorial Church

was designated as a sign of the triumph of the Ukrainian people. The connection with the

protection of the Mother of God continued with the rescheduling of the consecration of the

Church center, which occurred on September 21, the feast of the Birth of the Mother of God

(according to the Julian calendar). On this day, the Liturgy was offered at an outdoor altar before

the enormous image of the Protection of the Mother of God, bringing the inaugural events of

consecrating a Church center under the protection of the Mother of God and in memory of those

who died defending freedom and Ukrainian statehood to their conclusion.

The political theology articulated at the inaugural events fused together several staples from

Orthodox devotional history, namely the commemoration of those who defended the fatherland

against a bloodthirsty foe. During the Cold War, the Orthodox Ukrainians who enjoyed the

protection of the Mother of God in the United States named the foe: the Bolshevik regime

located in Moscow. The commemoration refers to a local struggle. The rationale for the

Ukrainian reference to the Protection of the Mother of God was their continued existence outside

of their native homeland. In the context of the Cold War, the Orthodox Ukrainians in the United

States drew from the traditional repository of Orthodox political theology and its champion, the

Mother of God, and fused it with American civic values: freedom and democracy. Thus, the 18 UOW June 1952, 3. 19 Ibid. The text notes that many of these early donors were elderly and required assistance when they approached Archbishop Mstyslav to receive the image.

political theology proclaimed by the small Ukrainian émigré community had global resonances:

the memory of their struggle to defeat the Soviets who sought their eradication provided fuel for

the global Christian battle against Soviet Union. The émigré battleground was the United States,

an appropriate opponent for the Soviet regime as the global symbol of liberty and freedom.

The centerpiece of the Church center was the Memorial Church itself, and the process of

building the Church was elongated by difficulties in raising the necessary funds. From 1954 to

1965, the Church administration repeatedly appealed to the people for donations. The Church

established 1961 as the goal for the construction and dedication of the Memorial Church, the

centennial of Shevchenko’s death, as explored in the section above. In 1954, the UOC unveiled

the plan for the Memorial Church, appointing Yurik Kodak as the architect who had designed

several edifices in Canada.20 The UOC expressed their aspirations for the legacy of the edifice: 21

As we see from the project, the Memorial Church in Bound Brook will be not only a

beautiful divine temple, before whose altar daily prayers for the souls of our beloved

relatives and martyred brothers and sisters will be offered, but also a marvelous example

of Ukrainian ecclesial architecture…besides this, the Memorial Church in Bound Brook

will surely be one of the most precious additions to the spiritual and cultural treasury of

the United States of America, which Orthodox Ukrainians зложать as expressions of

thanksgiving for that will for the liberty of soul and conscience, which they exercise in

America.

The initial plan included 52 spaces for burial crypts in the mausoleum, and the initial estimated

cost for the church was $100,000. The groundbreaking occurred in 1955.

20 UOW February 1954, 11.21 Ibid.

In 1958, the political theology of the Memorial Church gained momentum as the Ukrainian

émigré community commemorated another anniversary, the 25-year mark of the Holodomor in

Ukraine.22 Archbishop Mstyslav offered a press conference for the American press and explained

that Ukrainian Americans were building the structure in memory of their brothers and sisters

who died a martyr’s death at the hand of “red-communist Moscow.”23 The Memorial Church’s

political theology remained consistent with the themes established in 1952. In April 1958, the

UOC stated that the new church was in memory of those who gave their lives in battle for the

liberty of Ukraine and her people and her life in the fatherland. This statement again referred to

the United States as a “land of freedom,” a symbol of the émigré community’s aspiration for

Ukraine’s future. By August of 1960, as construction was slowed, the polemic of the political

theology thickened in the wake of the Cold War.

The UOC stated that the Memorial Church was constructed in honor of those who were

sacrificed to the Muscovite communists, and was relevant not only for the Ukrainian people, but

also for all humankind.24 The essay speaks of the suffering inflicted by the communist regime

upon Ukraine, attributing the burden carried by Ukraine in the terrible battle against communism

to the will of God. The author also states that the tyranny of communist Moscow over Ukraine

remains as it was, despite the fact that Stalin had died in 1953 and was replaced by Krushchev.

The article states that the tyranny of Moscow exercised on Ukraine continues the pattern of the

flow of blood and the suffering of the people in Ukraine, with the exception of those who serve

the Communist Party.25 In the face of this ongoing tyranny, the Memorial Church in Bound

Brook was to symbolize “all of those who perished by the will of communism.”26 “It is to stand

22 UOC March 1958. 23 At the time, in March 1958, 25% of the construction was complete.24 UOW, August 1960, p. 9. The essay is signed by “Старий,” which simply means “Old man.” 25 Ibid.26 Ibid.

upon a symbolical grave for all of those who perished for the freedom of Ukraine—whether in an

active battle with the raider or as evening sacrifices through their own passiveness and

ignorance, they led the always active enemy to victory whereas they themselves had a martyr’s

death for their passiveness.”27 The author states that the Memorial Church will become a

manifestation of the battle between Satan and God and that the Memorial Church is necessary for

the sake of the people of other nations who were beginning to recognize the poison produced by

communism: if the Ukrainians failed to complete construction of the Memorial Church, the idea

of communism would be victorious.28

In the September and October 1960 issues of UOW, the UOC reported that the construction of

the Memorial Church had garnered the attention of the Soviet Union and that Moscow viewed

the completion of the Memorial Church as a serious threat. One report states that a priest in New

York attempted to steal the primary contractor away from the Ukrainians, who had not raised

enough money to continue construction. By November 1960, the urgency to complete

construction by 1961 reached a new height: it was necessary to coincide with the 100-year

jubilee of Shevchenko’s death, a symbolic year since Shevchenko was “the greatest martyr of

Ukraine’s battle with Moscow.”29 The urgency of the financial appeal and the latent criticism of

those who had not yet donated for the cost of construction are expressed by the report’s reference

to a letter written to the editor.30 The writer argues, “if each one of us donated just a portion of

the sum we give each year [to income tax]…then our Church easily and quickly would not only

complete the construction of the Memorial Church, but would be able to purchase the Empire

27 UOW August 1960, 9-10. 28 Earlier in the article, the author states that the Ukrainians were the first people to recognize communism as a creation of Satan, which is now manifest in Moscow. 29 UOW November 1960, 13. The report refers to Shevchenko as “Пророк України” and “Великомученик(а),” or “Prophet of Ukraine” and “Great Martyr” of the Ukrainian people. 30 Ibid.

State building…and place a cross on her roof.” The Church continues to establish June 1961 as

the proposed completion date for the edifice.

In January 1961, a new element contributed to the political theology and the edifice itself. The

construction process added fragments from beloved shrines in Ukraine, namely the cathedral of

St. Sophia, the Pecherska Lavra monastery, St. Michael’s monastery, and the cathedral of St.

Nicholas (all in Kyiv). Each of these edifices has historical significance for Ukrainians, and the

UOC sought the addition of the last three fragments in particular as symbols of reconstruction,

since their original buildings—the Dormition Church of the Lavra, St. Michael’s church, and the

cathedral of St. Nicholas—were destroyed by the Bolsheviks.31 We have already mentioned 1961

as the jubilee year for the death of Shevchenko; the UOC added another commemoration, the 40-

year anniversary of the proclamation of ecclesial autocephaly in Kyiv by the first Ukrainian

Autocephalous Orthodox Church.32

This All-Ukrainian Council had established the original tone for separation from Moscow, and

the 1921 council sought to ignite a powerful spiritual renewal in Ukraine which would be

permanently free from the shackles of Moscow and based upon an unprecedented spirit of

cooperation between clergy and laity in the Orthodox Church.33 The 1921 initiative had tepid and

temporary support from the Soviet government since the regime viewed Ukrainian movement as

a preferable alternative to the ideological threat posed by the reinvigorated patriarchate of

Moscow.34 Through their enthusiastic anti-tsarist polemic and revolutionary spirit, the 1921

Ukrainians benefitted from surprising popularity among the Ukrainian populace. This connection 31 UOW, January, 1961, 10. The author of the article states that the Memorial Church was built from the fragments of Ukrainian shrines destructed by the Muscovite hand. 32 Ibid., 10.33 For a summative overview, see Bohdan Bociurkiw, “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, 1920-30: A Case Study in Religious Modernization,” in Religion and Modernization in the Soviet Union, ed. Dennis Dunn (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1977), 310-47.34 Ibid., 313-317.

proved to be short-lived as the Soviet government began to diminish the stature of the 1921

Church as early as 1924, and began the process of persecution in 1927, with complete liquidation

complete within Ukraine in 1936.

The UOC envisioned the Memorial Church as a shrine honoring the memory and contributions

of Ukraine’s ecclesial and national pioneers. The edifice’s foundation was the memory of the

past. However, these very pioneers were invoked to challenge the people of the UOC in the

present. With the failure to raise sufficient funds lurking on the background, the UOC depicted

the following scene of an encounter between the Orthodox Ukrainians of their present (in 1961)

and the heroes of Ukraine’s past:35

The time is coming to look them all in the eyes, to look directly, not hiding from their

view, and to be prepared to respond to their question: but have all of you who live and

benefit from the rich mercies of God, followed the example of our life and labor even in

small measure?

The UOC was attempting to motivate the people to donate enough to complete construction by

1961 and expressed confidence that the people would respond. The response to the hypothetical

question posed by the Ukrainian pioneers is provided by the author of the article, who questions

the moral right of Ukrainians to claim the patrimony of the people who produced “the

metropolitan martyrs Vasyl and Mykolaj and the genius Taras Shevchenko.”36 1961 became a

central date in the process of constructing the Memorial Church. On the one hand, the invocation

of the memories of Ukraine’s heroes added to the political theology of defending the Fatherland

and sacrificing one’s life for Ukraine’s liberty. The émigré community produced tangible figures

35 UOW, January 1961, 10.36 Ibid., 11.

from Ukraine’s recent history occasioned by jubilee years: the centennial anniversary of

Shevchenko’s death resulted in the community’s recognition of his martyrdom and prophecy,

whereas the fortieth-year anniversary of the All-Ukrainian Council restored the memory of

Ukrainian Church leaders who were also patriots, Metropolitans Vasil Lypkivsky and Mykola

Boretsky. Shevchenko and the two metropolitans became the unofficial saints of the new holy

place, the faces of Ukrainian martyrdom in the epic battle against Moscow’s communism. On the

other hand, the connection of the memorial Church with these figures created duress for the

émigré Church: failure to complete the construction project would diminish their reputation in

Ukrainian history and would compromise the global Christian battle against communism.

From 1961 to 1965, the political theology that began to take shape with the dedication of the

Church center in Bound Brook remained more or less stable as the émigré community slowly

completed the construction. America as a symbol of what Ukraine hoped to become remained

vibrant with the activities of Church leaders in political life. On January 23, 1961, the day before

Ukraine had declared independence in 1919, a special prayer for Ukraine’s freedom was read in

both chambers of the United States Congress.37 The UOC declared June 4, 1961, a “great feast,”

as the fragments from the shrines in Kyiv were installed into their designated spaces in the

Memorial Church. The theology of this great feast was consistent with the foundations

established since 1952; the feast commemorated the Ukrainian people’s sacrifice on the altars of

its battle for the justice of god in the world. The Church accentuated the significance of building

the memorial Church in the free world (America), an accomplishment permitted by “divine

providence.”38 The addition of the ruined fragments to the Memorial Church’s constituted the

pilgrimage of relics from Ukraine’s Jerusalem to the United States.39 One quality of the Church’s 37 UOW, March 1961, 17.38 Ibid.39 Ibid.

description of this great feast is notable: this was not an instance of an émigré community

lamenting the loss suffered as a result of their exile from their native homeland. Rather, it was an

occasion for thanksgiving for the gift of divine providence, and not an occasion for weeping

while gazing upon the foreign “waters of Babylon.”40 The installation of relics from Ukraine’s

past shrines were designed to ignite renewed love for the fatherland in the present, an illustration

of the ultimate objective of the Memorial Church: the liberation and resurrection of Ukraine, and

of all people who were suffering under the tyranny of communism.

The Church was finally dedicated on October 10, 1965, which was celebrated as a day of Paschal

joy, a “victory of light over darkness,” and an opportunity to renew the majesty of ruined

Ukrainian holy places in the free world. October 10 was designated as a special feast for the

Ukrainian Orthodox Church as ten-thousand people attended the dedication. Metropolitan John

Theodorovich’s speech included a concluding exhortation that synthesized the UOC’s objective

for erecting the edifice:41

May our Memorial Church remain standing for the ages! May the participants of the

actions of our age establish the path for remembering these experiences! May our

children and their children learn about the glory and sorrow of our day and evoke love to

our native land and people in us! May the shrine erected by us loudly proclaim the need

for our freedom-loving American people to attentively remain on the side of freedom! …

From all ends of the United States of America, come here, and here find the breath of

40 “The Sunday of June 4 this year {1961] will be for us an authentically great day because on that day we will glorify for giving us who dwell in foreign lands the most precious reliquary to each Ukrainian heart – fragments from our Ukrainian shrines, which were symbols of the immortal Ukrainian soul. One must understand this gift as the manifestation of God’s great mercy, because in the past, many other peoples wandering in exile enriched foreign ‘babylonian waters’ with their tears, but rarely did God show such great kindness to any of these nations as he has shown us, transferring a fragment of the most valuable native thing to dwell in our hearts,” in ibid. 41 UOW November-December 1965, 2.

everything native, find in this place peace and faith: the day is coming that our land will

be free and our nation on it!

The Erection of the Monument to Taras Shevchenko

In this section of the essay, I will discuss how the 1964 erection of the monument to Taras

Shevchenko in Washington, DC, established Shevchenko as a hero-martyr around whom

Ukrainian immigrants gathered, and whose memory contributed to the shaping of a political

theology of liberation. The erection of the Memorial Church in Bound Brook included numerous

references to Shevchenko as the prophet and great martyr of Ukraine. A central event in the life

of the Ukrainian émigré community of the United States was the erection of the Shevchenko

memorial statue in Washington, DC. President Dwight Eisenhower had signed the law

authorizing the erection of the statue on September 13, 1960, and the statue was unveiled on June

27, 1964.

The celebration of the unveiling of Shevchenko’s statue provided another opportunity for

Ukrainians in the United States to proclaim the tenets of political theology with which we are

familiar. Over one-hundred thousand people of Ukrainian descent attended the ceremony in

stifling summer heat. While President Lyndon Johnson was not in attendance, Eisenhower was

the keynote political speaker for the unveiling ceremony. The ceremony also included prayers

recited by Major Archbishop Ambrose Senyshyn of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and

Metropolitan John Theodorovich of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The themes of freedom,

condemnation of communist totalitarianism, and the notion of the United States as the primary

center of contemporary liberation were expressed in the event’s proceedings.

Eisenhower’s remarks represent the American polemic of the Cold War, language fully

supported by the Ukrainian community. Eisenhower bemoaned the prevalence of tyranny and

oppression galvanized by rulers in many parts of the world.42 He expressed hope that the

establishment of the statue would mark the beginning of a “new world movement…dedicated to

the independence and freedom of peoples of all captive nations of the entire world.” Eisenhower

concluded his speech by referring to the significance of erecting Shevchenko’s statue in the

capital city of the United States: “His statue, standing here in the heart of the nation’s capital,

near the embassies where representatives of nearly all the countries of the world can see it, is a

shining symbol of his love of liberty.” 43 Eisenhower’s speech does not impart particularly

original material on the polemics of the Cold War, but his participation in the honoring of an

outspoken patron of freedom and national independence from a country of the Soviet Union

attests to the notion of the United States as the global patron of freedom. As an international city

hosting the representatives of the global community, the erection of Shevchenko’s statue in

Washington projected the perception of America’s commitment to emancipating the peoples

enslaved by communist regimes.

America’s role as a protector country providing an international platform for the émigré’s

community’s quest for freedom and condemnation of the Soviet tyrant gained momentum with

the erection of Shevchenko’s statue. The leaders of the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox

Churches offered the invocation and benediction for the unveiling, and the texts of their prayers

grant us insight into their comprehension and hopes for America’s role in liberating Ukraine and

42 “We have se en the counterattacks of fascism and communism substitute for them the totalitarian state, the suppression of personal freedom, the denial of national independence and even the destruction of free inquiry and discussion. Tyranny and oppression today are not different from tyranny and oppression in the days of Taras Shevchenko. Now, as then, tyranny means the concentration of all power in an elite body, in a government bureau, in a single man.” Quoted from Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Address at the Unveiling of the Monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington,” in UW, July 3, 1964. 43 Ibid.

other captive countries. Archbishop-Metropolitan Ambrose Shenyshyn invoked an elaboration of

the Lord’s Prayer. Portions of Archbishop Ambrose’s prayer referred to immediate relief for

Ukraine, including a petition for freedom of worship: “Hallowed be Thy name…vouchsafe, o

gracious Lord, that all our brothers and sisters in Ukraine may freely glorify Thee in churches,

schools and homes under the guidance of Thy clergy and hierarchy.”44 Archbishop-Metropolitan

Ambrose seemed to understand the formidable challenge posed to leaders of the international

community who sought peace during the Cold War, and his petitions for their wisdom and

prudence evoked the fears of new outbreaks of war and nuclear Armageddon: “Thy kingdom

come…grant Thy grace to the mighty ones of this world that they may recognize thy eternal

truth, so as to find the key to the solutions of international problems and the establishment of

lasting world peace.”45 The next part of the prayer refers to the prudence needed to avoid the

most catastrophic potential outcomes of the Cold War: “Enlighten, Lord, the leaders of the

United States as well as the leaders of the other countries, so that, employing the attainments of

the natural sciences, they would use their sources of nuclear energy, not for purposes of war and

destruction of peoples, but for the welfare of future generations.”46 Ambrose’s prayer represents

the Ukrainian communities hope and trust in the leadership of the United States in establishing

world peace with prudence, given the nuclear armament accompanying the Cold War.

Metropolitan John’s closing benediction also testifies to the Ukrainian community’s

acknowledgement of America’s role in the Cold War. Metropolitan John’s benediction is a

designation of the unveiling of Shevchenko’s monument as the inauguration of a “day of life” for

44 Ibid., p. 2. The second petition asks “Give us this day our daily bread, give it also to our brethren in Ukraine, so that they may live and work for Thy glory and the welfare of our people.”45 Immediately after “thy kingdom come,” Ambrose prayed “thy kingdom of Thy love and freedom and peace throughout the whole world; not the kingdom of godless rulers, a kingdom of hatred, disharmony and slavery,” an implicit reference to Soviet rulers in ibid.46 Ibid.

the Ukrainian nation. The establishment of the monument was to awaken ‘national

consciousness” on a “day of our national rebirth.”47 The émigré community’s aspiration for

national rebirth depended on America’s support, and Metropolitan john’s prayer includes several

allusions to America’s role as home and patron of the émigré community [this portion of the

benediction addresses Shevchenko]: “Erecting this monument to thee in this capital city of the

United States of America, in the blessed land to which we came led by the will of God, we

pledge not to forget thy world, we pledge to live by it.” Metropolitan John’s final exhortation

expresses the émigré community’s dual mission: ignite the spirit of national rebirth for the

emancipation of Ukraine while remaining faithful citizens of the United States: “Let this

monument stand firm, immovable! Let it bring out in us devotion to the destiny of our Great

Country – the United States of America, and to the destiny of our native land and nation.”

Metropolitan John depicted Shevchenko himself as a proponent of liberty whose values are held

by both Americans and Ukrainians. Shevchenko was not merely the national poet of Ukraine, but

also the prophet and martyr, manifested by his courage in enduring the penalties inflicted upon

him for advocating an independent Ukraine.48

The erection of Shevchenko’s statue in Washington, DC, continued the proliferation of the

political theology of Ukraine’s martyrdom suffered in search of ecclesial and national

independence, with America as an ally and patron of the present that provides the remnant

community with the public platform to seek the emancipation of their brethren muted by Soviet

tyranny. The Cold War itself contributed to the erection of the statue as American politicians

viewed Shevchenko’s statue as a prophetic symbol of liberty, a glimpse of the future of all

countries under Soviet tyranny. Shevchenko’s statue also made a more practical contribution to

47 Ibid. 48 “Bravely he bore the penalties for his daring word which Thou, Eternal, gavest him,” in ibid.

the émigré community as it provided Ukrainian Americans with a national shrine for seeking

Ukraine’s freedom and condemning the policies of the Soviet Union, a gathering place where

they integrated the evolving polemics of the Cold War into more forceful demands for Ukrainian

freedom, a pattern of public theological demonstration which reached its pinnacle with the

celebration of the millennium of the baptism of Kyivan Rus’.

The Millennium Celebration: 1978-1989

The celebration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus’ marked the conclusion of the

evolution of political theology in the Ukrainian émigré community. The process of preparing for

the celebration began in 1978 and concluded with a number of Millennial celebrations in 1988.

The evolution of émigré political theology coalesced around two unique causes: the legalization

of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the restoration of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church in

Ukraine. Renewed restrictions on religious observance form the background to the millennial

celebrations. As the émigré communities fully exercised their freedom to worship in the United

States and exploited their opportunity to denounce Soviet policies, Nikita Krushchev renewed

the persecution of the Church and ended the temporary thaw between Church and state under

Stalin which began in 1943.49 Ironically, the situation was complicated with the new policy of

glasnost implemented by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. While the Orthodox Church did not

flourish, the Soviet state permitted some relaxation of existing prohibitions, motivated in part by

the opportunity to utilize the Millennium celebration as an occasion to lift morale throughout the

Soviet Union. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches of the Ukrainian émigré community found

themselves negotiating occasionally conflicted paths, as continuing the pattern of condemning

49 See Pospielovsky, 313-8.

the Soviet regime for its anti-religious policies began to give way to working with government

officials in the more open environment under Gorbachev.

Preparations for the Millennium celebration began as early as 1978 in the Ukrainian Catholic

Church, as evidenced by the Pastoral Easter epistle sent the same year. The bishops urged the

faithful to begin preparing for the millennium celebration by establishing three priorities:

spiritual renewal, vocations to the priesthood, and the canonization of Metropolitan Andrei

Sheptytsky. The rationale for such preparation was directed not only towards the strengthening

of contemporary Church life, but also to enhance the process of evangelizing Ukraine once she

was emancipated from anti-religious rule. The bishops stated that the priorities would “help

make us ready to assist with deed and word in the conversion of our fatherland when the ray of

freedom shines upon it.”50

One of the signals of the émigré community’s readiness to take more deliberate action in

contributing to ecclesial and national independence in Ukraine was the close cooperation of the

Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the United States. The years surrounding the millennial

celebration produced mixed results in this regard as the Churches prayed together in numerous

ecumenical assemblies and addressed political issues univocally, but still found themselves

separated during the official celebrations in 1988. The desire for closer cooperation between the

Catholic and Orthodox churches was manifest in the creation of an ecumenical committee for the

celebration of the millennium in the United States. The Catholic and Orthodox churches

established a millennium committee on March 23, 1985.51 UOC Metropolitan Mstyslav and UC

Archbishop-Metropolitan Stephen co-authored an appeal to the Ukrainian community

50 UW, April 15, 1978. 51 “Hierarchs to convene meeting to establish millennium committee,” UW March 3, 1985, 1.

establishing the Church’s shared objectives for the millennial celebration.52 The appeal expresses

the political theology formed and sustained by the émigré community during the Cold War.

The appeal refers to the impoverished state of Christians in Ukraine, referring to them as

“enslaved brothers and sisters” and “martyrs and confessors” whose blood is shed even in the

present.53 The hybrid identity of the émigré community is once again manifest, as they

essentially have dual citizenship, belonging simultaneously to “the free world” while also

members of “our nation,” which lives in “brutal suppression in the native land.” The problem of

the absence of religious freedom is untenable: the persecuted Christians in Ukraine “cannot

freely and appropriately give thanks to God for the grace of the baptism of our forefathers.” The

bishops explicate the objective of the united émigré community. They have a “sacred duty” to

“appropriately prepare” and thank God for one-thousand years of grace. The bishops

underscored the importance of Catholic-Orthodox unity in the millennial celebration. The

celebration must occur “in a unified manner,” and the émigré community “must jointly mark our

millennium.” The bishops stressed that the suffering Christians of Ukraine expected the émigré

community to act on their behalf, and the ultimate objective of the millennial celebration is to set

the stage for a future triumph.54 The end of the appeal called upon the entire emigre community

of the United States to send representatives to a meeting that would establish a national

millennium committee to mark the celebrations. The appeal accomplished at least two

objectives: a committee was established, and it used the millennium celebration to push for the

defense of truth and rights (iterated in the appeal) in the public square.

52 “Appeal of Ukrainian churches on the millennium of Christianity,” UW march 3, 1985, 3. 53 Ibid. 54 “The historical significance of this jubilee demands that we all give witness before God and the world to our dedication to the holy vows that each of us took at the time of his own baptism. Renewed in our faith, let us buttress our attempt to prepare the jubilee celebration with dignity.” The appeal also noted that a unified, joint celebration “will be proof of the maturity of our nation on its path to a glorious future,” in ibid.

The ecumenical cooperation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches was strengthened in 1983,

which was the fiftieth anniversary of the Holodomor. The Churches commemorated the event

with a large-scale ecumenical celebration of the Holodomor which expressed the staples of

émigré political theology while referring to the forthcoming millennial celebration. Thirteen-

thousand people attended the ecumenical service in South Bound Brook, New Jersey.55 The event

included concerts, speeches, and academic presentations, along with strong appeals to the duty of

the Ukrainian émigré community to communicate the details and facts of the Holodomor to

America and the global community.56 Notable is the ecumenical character of the event, with the

Ukrainian Evangelical Alliance of North America represented by Pastor Wladimir Borowsky

alongside the usual Catholic and Orthodox communities. Catholic archbishop-Metropolitan

Stephen addressed the large gathering at the event, a homily which reinvigorated the political

theology we have seen here.57 His homily focused on the suffering endured by the Ukrainians in

the great famine of 1932-3, and his political theology is a variant of theodicy.58 In response to the

rhetorical question of why God would permit such suffering, archbishop-metropolitan Stephen

stated that “our nation’s way of the cross has a sacramental mission in the plans of divine

providence—a mission unknown to us, but one that will be soon revealed.” Despite the hidden

nature of the mystery, Archbishop-Metropolitan Stephen suggested that the émigré community

had access to at least one aspect of the mission: unity. (“Our national suffering is a powerful

sermon, a sign from heaven, that we should ponder, deeply ponder, the necessity of unity,

55 Roma Sochan Hadzewycz, “13,000 attend Great Famine memorial service,” UW, May 22, 1983. 56 Notable is the speech of Anatolij Lysyj, who suggested that “Ukrainians should unite to make others aware of the genocide that claimed 7 million Ukrainian lives and that the Ukrainian people should overcome their psychological individualism and become a united Ukrainian community for the sake of the Ukrainian nation’s future,” in Marta Kolomayets, “Great famine victims recalled at solemn memorial event,” UW, May 22, 1983, 4. 57 Archbishop-Metropolitan Stephen (Sulyk), “On remembering our national tragedy,’ UW, May 22, 1983, 7.58 Archbishop-metropolitan posed a series of rhetorical questions, such as “Why, merciful Lord, did you allow such misfortune to befall our land?...Why does an innocent nation suffer, while evil, malice and coercion triumph?” in ibid.

harmony, and love of God and neighbor, and that we should rid ourselves of that which disunited

us.”). His homily began and ended with reference to the Prophecy of Ezekiel 37:1-14, a lesson

read at the Matins of Holy Saturday in the Byzantine rite observed by Orthodox and Greek

Catholics that speaks of the Lord redeeming Israel and reviving the dead bodies of the valleys by

the power of the Spirit. In the conclusion to his homily, archbishop-Metropolitan Stephen viewed

the promise of redemption in this prophecy as holding hope for the future of Ukraine:59

What comforting words of the Lord. He is the creator of nations. He allocated to each

nation a land. He wishes all nations to live freely in their homelands. That is why he will

look down upon the suffering, tears, blood and destruction, and primarily upon the

tortures of those who died of starvation in the brutal famine. He will hear the sound of the

prayers of the faithful of the Church in the Catacombs of Ukraine. Let us add our prayers.

He will revive heroism, the strength and power of our ancestors, and then our blue and

yellow flags will fly over our free Ukraine.

The fiftieth anniversary of the commemoration of the famine was significant in the development

of Ukrainian-American émigré political theology because of its reference to the suffering,

martyrdom and confession of their ancestral past, with confidence expressed in the contribution

of the memory of that suffering to the creation of a resurrected future for the Ukrainian nation.

From a ritual perspective, the participation of thirteen-thousand Ukrainians in an authentic

ecumenical event amounted to the rehearsal of the oft-repeated appeal for laying aside all

difference for the sake of the longsuffering country. The participants could justify non-

participation on account of political and religious disagreements; they chose to assemble as a

united community in the Orthodox center as a rehearsal of putting aside difference for the

59 Ibid.

accomplishment of common objectives: religious and national emancipation for their brethren in

Soviet Ukraine.

As the millennium jubilee approached, international plans for marking the celebration impacted

the political theology expressed in conjunction with the Millennium. The late Bohdan Bociurkiw,

the preeminent historian of the Greek Catholic and Orthodox churches of modern Ukraine,

delivered a public lecture in April 1985 sponsored by the Washington Group.60 Bociurkiw noted

that the Soviet government and Moscow Patriarchate had come together in a “marriage of

convenience” to depict the millennium as a Russian event, thus “denying the legitimacy of

Ukrainian celebrations in the West.”61 Bociurkiw referred to the joint venture of the Soviet

regime and Moscow Patriarchate as ideological, representing imperial aspirations, and

communicating to the global community that there neither a nationality nor a church problem in

the USSR.62 The Moscow Patriarchate invited numerous Western churches to participate in their

celebration. Bociurkiw also referred to internal disagreement on how to approach the millennium

within the Vatican, since Pope John Paul II had supported the Ukrainian bishops, whereas others

desired to strengthen the Vatican’s relationship with Russia.63 Bociurkiw emphasized the new

support of the Kremlin for the Russian Church, which included the construction of a new press

and conference center, the return of a major monastery, and the planned restoration of the

Dormition cathedral in the Kiev Pecherska Lavra.64

60 Yaro Bihun, “Ukrainian millennium celebrations challenged by Soviets, Moscow Patriarchate,” UW, April 14, 1985, 1. The news report notes that Bociurkiw was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson international Center for Scholars at the time of his lecture. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid., 13. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid.

The primary theme of Bociurkiw’s report was how the émigré community should receive the

plans for commemorating the millennium in the USSR, and the central message was that the

Soviet regime and Moscow Patriarchate sought to dismiss the legitimacy of the Ukrainian

celebration in the diaspora. An example of the effect of the disparate interpretations of the

Millennium on the political theology of the émigré community is manifest in the 1985 Easter

archpastoral letter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA.65 The bishops refer to the

well-known homily attributed to John Chrysostom read at the end of the paschal matins service

in the Byzantine rite, which “calls upon all of us to luxuriate in the feast,” with the promise that

“all will be satisfied.” From the bishops’ perspective, nothing had changed in the policies of the

USSR. The bishops said that “bells do not announce the good news of the Resurrection in our

distant fatherland.” The people there are “separated from the free world and above all from

Christ the Savior” and live involuntarily “in the territory which the Antichrist had designated

with the ill-boding letters, the USSR.”66

When the Ukrainian émigré community of the United States celebrated the Millennium in 1987-

88, the political theology that had evolved throughout the course of the Cold War reached a fever

pitch in the actions of the community. In an attempt to demonstrate Christian vitality in the

diaspora, each community celebrated the construction and dedication of a new temple. The

Ukrainian Catholic community dedicated a national shrine (Holy Family) in Washington, DC,

near the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. The Shrine was designated a site for pilgrimage,

establishing a haven for Ukrainian catholic and other travelers visiting the nation’s capital. At the

dedication ceremony, Bishop Basil Losten referred to DC as the “home of all freedom” and

described the shrine’s mission as an opportunity to “assist our brethren under communist

65 The entire English text of the letter is published as “Darkness is dissipated” in UW, April 14, 1985, 1. 66 Ibid.

oppression.”67 Thus, the erection of the Catholic shrine shared qualities with the memorial

Church in Bound Brook and the Shevchenko statue: it symbolized both the American patriotism

of the Ukrainian émigré community and their devotion to seeking the redemption of their

brethren in the present age. Orthodox Ukrainians also erected a new temple in Bloomingdale,

Illinois, and the consecration of the church was one of the hallmarks of the millennial

celebrations in Chicago.

For the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the United States, the millennial celebrations took

divergent paths. The primary Catholic celebrations occurred in Rome with Pope John Paul II on

July 17, 1988. The Ukrainian Catholics found an ally in the Polish pontiff who had advocated for

them in his meetings with Gorbachev. The Catholic celebration in Rome was notable for the

absence of the Orthodox bishops who had cooperated with them in preparation for the

millennium. A letter written to the editor of the Ukrainian Weekly noted the absence of the

Orthodox, and asked if they had even been invited to participate. Ukrainian Catholics had

prepared for the millennial celebration by issuing a letter to the faithful which repeated some of

the features of the political theology we have encountered here.68 In the letter, the bishops assert

the inseparability of the Church and the Ukrainian nation.69 The bishops acknowledge the

“friendly shores” offered by America to Ukrainian immigrants and call upon the faithful to

“employ every means possible to assist our Church in Chains, our Mother in Ukraine, so that she

might rise from those modern catacombs and one again shine in the glory of the treasure of those

first centuries of her Christianity.”70 The primary celebration of the Orthodox émigré community

67 UW, Setpember 25, 1988.68 English translation, “Catholic hierarchs’ pastoral letter on Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine,” UW, Dec. 13, 1987, 4, 15. 69 “The Ukrainian Church with its beautiful rite and glorious traditions so impregnated the life of the people that Church and nation became synonymous,” in ibid., 4. 70 Ibid., 15.

occurred on August 5-7 in South Bound Brook. The celebration had an ecumenical flavor with

the participation of Bishop Isaiah of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the

greetings from Patriarch Dimitrios. The event did not produce new material that enhances the

political theology of the Cold War, but was primarily a call to unity and action on the part of

Metropolitan Mstyslav.

The millennial celebrations are particularly noteworthy for the émigré community’s response to

the Church’s exhortations for urgent action to liberate Ukraine’s churches and people from

Soviet captivity. There are numerous examples illustrating political theology that translated into

action. One of the most notable examples involves a familiar figure, Metropolitan Mstyslav

Skrypnyk. He responded to the appeals of Vasyl Romaniuk, an Orthodox priest who had been

imprisoned in the Soviet Union, and made a powerful political appeal to United States President

Ronald Reagan to intercede on Romaniuk’s behalf.71 In the letter, Mstyslav requests Reagan’s

personal intercession for Romaniuk’s extradition to the United States. Of greater significance is

Mstyslav’s definition of America’s role at this stage in American-Soviet relations on the eve of a

December 7, 1985 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev:72

I am deeply aware of the monumental task which you face by virtue of the impending

December 7 summit session with the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail

Gorbachev. They will be days which will test the very moral fiber of America, and the

principles of freedom, justice, and equality for which our country stands. Therefore, I

beseech and implore Almighty God to guide your every step, to be with you and to

strengthen you in your resolve, for the task set before you will most certainly determine

71 “Metropolitan Mstyslav Appeals for Romaniuks,” UW December 13, 1987, 1, 3. 72 Ibid., 4. Equally notable is Mstyslav’s reference to the “sacred mission which God has entrusted to America for both the present and the future,” in ibid.

the future of not only America, as the bastion of democracy and defender of human

rights, but the future of all God-fearing and freedom loving people everywhere.

Mstyslav’s action stands out among a series of actions within the émigré community that seem to

demonstrate the community’s response to the appeals of political theology. The National

Ukrainian Millennium Committee established under the aegis of the Catholic and Orthodox

bishops organized a rally of 20,000 people on October 7-9. 1988, in Washington, DC. They

marched on the Soviet embassy and demanded freedom for the Ukrainian Churches.

Furthermore, 2,500 Ukrainians gathered at the Shevchenko monument for an ecumenical

molieben celebrating the millennium on the same weekend. Finally, the National Millennium

Committee also wrote a formal letter to Gorbachev demanding the legalization of the Ukrainian

Catholic and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. The American politicians

had varied responses to the Ukrainian entreaties. President Reagan wrote a formal letter of

congratulations to the National Ukrainian Millennium Committee.73 His message acknowledged

that the USSR “outlawed the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Churches and repressed the

Protestant faith,” and pledged America’s commitment to “emphasize that freedom of conscience

and freedom of religion are basic human rights and that relations with the Soviet Union cannot

prosper without improvement in the Soviets’ human rights performance.”74 The Ukrainian

community paid attention to the activities of the candidates for the Oval office, criticizing

George Bush for his absence from all millennial commemorations, whereas Michael Dukakis’s

campaign promoted the greetings they sent to the Ukrainians.

Conclusion

73 “President Reagan’s message for Ukrainian Millennium Celebrations,” UW, October 16, 1988.74 Ibid.

The millennial celebrations reached a fever pitch in their political theology and were followed by

the end of the Cold War and the deliverance of the émigré community’s decades-long petition to

God. In 1989, the Ukrainian Catholic Church was legalized and restored in the Soviet Union. In

1990, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was legalized and enthroned its first

patriarch, Mstyslav from the United States. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and Ukraine

achieved its national sovereignty. It would seem that the political theology which developed over

the course of the Cold War is now only a series of pages belonging to a much larger corpus of

history. I would like to close with a short assessment of the Ukrainian émigré community’s

political theology, followed by a proposal for how the contemporary historian and theologian

might receive it.

1) The political theology of the Ukrainian émigré community in the United States consists

of the following themes: the Ukrainian people are martyrs and confessors who have been

enslaved by the godless Soviet tyrants in Moscow; the heroes of the Ukrainian martyrs

are their prophet and martyr Taras Shevchenko, along with the bishops (Vasyl Lypkivsky

and Andrei Sheptytsky in particular) who cultivated their freedom and proliferation; the

mission of the émigré community is to instruct the global community on the evil deeds of

the Soviet Union and inspire American political leaders to act with courage in liberating

captive nations from the communist tyrants; America has a God-given and sacred mission

as the bastion of hope and freedom for captive nations. America’s mission is to liberate

Ukraine and all other nations suffering under Soviet tyranny.

2) America, and especially Washington, DC, becomes a sacred place and holy ground in the

émigré community’s mission. The political theology is expressed most fervently through

events and construction, especially the Orthodox Memorial Church in Bound Brook, the

Shevchenko monument in DC, and the Ukrainian Holy Family shrine in DC. The

locations become the primary stations of epic ritual events that communicate the political

theology of the émigré community. The Ukrainian Catholic celebration in Rome is an

exception to this rule and distinguishes the Ukrainian Catholic affiliation with Rome from

the Orthodox aspirations for ecclesial autocephaly.

3) While the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Churches shared the same political theology,

their ecclesial paths remained divergent. Proposals for the formation of a single Church in

Ukraine remain in their nascent stage.

4) The purpose of the political theology is not oriented towards the past, but expects

tangible deliverance in the present and future. The political theology developed by the

community exhorts its faithful to take action, and the faithful consistently obey this

exhortation and become quite active in the public square and in political and civic life.

5) While the political theology remains largely unchanged throughout the émigré

community’s history, it reaches a fever pitch with the Millennium celebration. The

Millennium coincides with the end of the Cold War, and ironically, the thaw in Soviet

anti-religious policy increases the determination of émigré political action.

6) The primary themes of the Cold War that coincide and contribute to the émigré

community’s political theology are the Soviet Union’s violation of human rights,

especially religious freedom, and the problem of tyranny and the enslavement of people

in the name of socialism. America is inscribed with Christian messianism by the émigré

community in its status as the bastion of freedom for the global community.75 Other

75 The Ukrainian émigré community’s political theology echoes earlier and contemporaneous religious aspirations for the victory of Western civilization over Eastern communist tyranny. For examples of scholarship surveying this topic, see Diane Kirby, “Truman’s Holy Alliance: The President, the Pope and the Origins of the Cold War,” Borderlines: Studies in American Culture 4, no. 1 (1997), 1-17; Axel Schӓfer, “Religious Non-profit Organisations, the Cold War, the State and Resurgent Evangelicalism, 1945-1990,” in The US Government, Citizen Groups and the Cold War: The State-Private Network, ed. Helen Laville and High Wilford (London: Routledge, 2006), 175-93; and

themes of the Cold War, such as nuclear armament, are secondary, but they do appear

occasionally in émigré communications.

The conclusion for the historian and the theologian is twofold. First, the historian should

compare the Ukrainian émigré community’s political theology with other manifestations of

liberation theology in émigré communities, especially as Latin American, Vietnamese, and

Korean. Such examinations of the Ukrainian émigré community’s political theology should also

be compared with the impact of the Cold War on other religious communities throughout the

world. Second, the emergence of a new “cold war” in the current period suggests that the

historical paths of Ukraine’s ecclesial and national trajectories remain in question. The

theologian is posed with two questions outside the scope of this study: first, how does the

political theology of an émigré community coincide with their pastoral mission in the United

States? The ongoing reconfiguration of participation in Church life in Ukraine, which has been

significantly impacted by the Euromaidan, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the war in

Eastern Ukraine, includes a contribution from the post-Soviet Ukrainian Churches in the United

States. Second, now that Ukraine is sovereign, can one anticipate an adoption of a redacted

version of this political theology to address the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia?

Given the continued development of theological and ecclesial narratives in Ukraine during in its

nascent post-Soviet period, I am convinced that the political theology developed by the

Ukrainian émigré community in the United States during the Cold War will ultimately contribute

to the historical path of contemporary Ukrainian Church and society.

Zoe Knox, “The Watch Tower Society and the End of the Cold War: Interpretations of the End-Times, Superpower Conflict, and the Changing Geopolitical Order,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79, no. 4 (2011), 1018-1049.