Orthodox Acting Like Episcopalians

I've noted here from time to time that the Russo-Ukraine War has led to schism within the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest Orthodox denomination. Inevitably, we're beginning to see former Russian Orthodox dioceses and new ad hoc groups declaring independence from the former mother body in pretty much the same way that the "continuing Anglican" movement left The Episcopal Church after the 1970s:

⚡️⚡️⚡️ This is huge!!! The Council of the Ukrainian branch of the Russian Orthodox Church declared independence from Moscow. Expressing disagreement with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow on the war, the Council proposed negotiations with the independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

— Alexander Khrebet/Олександр Хребет (@AlexKhrebet) May 27, 2022

Having studied "continuing Anglicanism" pretty closely while writing my old blog, this is all starting to have a familiar ring. Conventions and councils are staking out their positions in Ukraine and elsewhere just as disgruntled Episcopalians did late in the last century and early in this one, for instance here, via Google Translate:

The Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (hereinafter - the Council), held on May 27, 2022 in Kyiv, considered issues of church life that arose as a result of the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Based on the results of the work, the Council approved the following:

1. The Council condemns war as a violation of God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill!" (Exodus 20:13) and expresses condolences to all those who suffered in the war.
2. The Council appeals to the authorities of Ukraine and the authorities of the Russian Federation to continue the negotiation process and search for a strong and sensible word that could stop the bloodshed.
3. We disagree with the position of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on the war in Ukraine.
4. The Council adopted appropriate amendments to the Statute on the Administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which testify to the full independence and autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
5. The Council approves the resolutions of the Councils of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the decisions of the Holy Synods of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which met after the last Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (July 8, 2011). The Council approves the activities of the Department of Affairs and Synodal Institutions of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

This is not to say there isn't a huge grievance here, but the Orthodox in this case are running up against a very similar problem that eventually beset the Church of England by the early 19th century: the idea of a "national confession" simply became harder and harder to support. Religion can't be identified with nationality. In England, this occurred in peacetime when domestic reforms allowed tolerance of denominations outside the Church of England. It's clearly much more difficult when a single denomination becomes doctrinally divided on who's right in a war.

However, this step isn't completely new. According to Wikipedia,

A schism between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC, also known as the Moscow Patriarchate) and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople began on 15 October 2018 when the former unilaterally severed full communion with the latter.

The resolution was taken in response to a decision of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople of 11 October 2018, confirming its intentions to grant autocephaly (independence) to the Eastern Orthodox church in Ukraine in the future. The decision also stated that the Holy Synod would immediately: reestablish a stauropegion in Kyiv, i.e. a church body subordinated directly to the ecumenical patriarch; revoke the "Letter of issue" (permission) of 1686 that had given permission to the patriarch of Moscow to ordain the metropolitan of Kyiv; and lift the excommunications which affected the clergy and faithfuls of two unrecognized Ukrainian Eastern Orthodox churches. Those two unrecognized churches, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), were competing with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (UOC-MP) and were considered "schismatics" (illegally segregated groups) by the Patriarchate of Moscow, as well as by the other Eastern Orthodox churches.

Just as with "continuing Anglicans", the division degenerates into alphabet soup. The Council in the link above appears to be the UOC-MP in the Wikipedia entry, which, however, has also now declared independence from Patriarch Kirill. However, whether it will now associate itself with the either the UAOC or the UOC-KP is unclear, and if the "continuing Anglican" precedent applies, unlikely.

If we take the Episcopalian paradigm as any sort of indicator on what this schism will bring about for Orthodoxy, the prospects aren't good. In "continuing Anglicanism", the divisions have produced generations of litigation over property, which has depleted enormous resources for both loyalists and dissidents, while damaging everyone's prestige and encouraging disaffection among the population at large, which was losing enthusiasm for any sort of organized religion anyhow.

I can see only further damage to Orthodox prestige in the West, where up to now Orthodoxy has been a real option only to members of the loopy right, most prominently Rod Dreher, who became Orthodox in response to the Roman Catholic clergy abuse crisis in 2006. He is a member of the Orthodox Church in America, which is primarily made up of US-born, English-speakng members, some of whom are refugees from main line Protestant denominations as well as Catholicism.

While the OCA itself has denounced the Russian invasion of Ukraine and criticized Patriarch Kirill's support of Putin, Dreher himself has been taking the US far right position on the war:

I agree that Russia was wrong to have invaded Ukraine, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what we have to gain from risking war with Russia, or expanding this war to the rest of Europe.

I think this is a crisis for Orthodoxy, which I think Dreher finds it convenient to ignore. If nothing else, it will do nothing to increase Orthodoxy's prestige in the West as a conservative alternative to either Catholicism or a declining main line Protestantism.