A MOTION calling for peace in Ukraine was carried overwhelmingly by the General Synod on Tuesday morning. Before the talk began, the chair acknowledged that many others parts of the world were also engulfed in conflict, but urged members to focus their remarks on Ukraine.
Mark Sheard (Archbishops’ Council) introduced the talk with “a heavy heart”: the war was not a distant reality, but an “egregious human tragedy”. At the time of the invasion in 2022, Mr Sheard had been the chief executive of World Vision, which remained deeply engaged in humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. He could always remember the harrowing stories that he had heard from Ukrainian refugees, a lot of them children unsure whether their parents still lived.
Many within the chamber would produce other involvement, similar to hosting refugees of their homes or donating money to charities. All must consider “what it means to be salt and light-weight on this broken and wounded world”. The Church response’s must not be fleeting, but long-term, he said, helping people to address post-traumatic stress, or rebuilding communities.
Mr Sheard urged Synod members to withstand the temptation to turn out to be disillusioned by the slow grind of the war because it passed its second anniversary. Yes, the Church must stand on the side of Ukraine, he said, but he urged them to not dehumanise the Russians or invite “jingoistic self-righteousness”. The Church must not turn out to be a “propagandist”, but be certain that the voices of war’s innocent victims were heard.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, recently returned from Ukraine (News, 16 February), said that it was hard to overstate the importance of the war. Besides making his two trips to Ukraine, he had also spoken directly with Patriarch Kirill. “But I’m not neutral on this,” he said. “Ukraine is paying for our security with blood.” They were defending the international order, with Twenty first-century drones and First-World War-era bayonets. “This is an immensely dangerous time, not seen since 1938, aside from Cuba,” Archbishop Welby said.
Ukraine today was very different from his first trip in 2022. Gone was the optimism, replaced with a sombre and apprehensive atmosphere. Willing the top couldn’t replace willing the means, he warned. This meant more cash and weapons until Russia could say to itself “No further.”
Archbishop Welby described war as a tragedy that he didn’t support, and the Synod must ask what it could do to learn from Bishop George Bell and Archbishop William Temple about how a Church could pass though war. “We need a just, independently agreed peace, not one other Czechoslovakia or a Munich.” The longer the war dragged on, the more savage it might turn out to be, he said.
The Church must empathise with Ukraine’s determination to stay a free democracy, including its latest law that might close down the Ukrainian Orthodox Church if it remained loyal to Moscow. The Church couldn’t be neutral within the war, Archbishop Welby said, but it surely could seek a dignified consequence to offer the world a likelihood to be “protected and secure”.
An officer within the Royal Navy, Adam Kendry (Armed Forces), said that he lived out each day a paradox of serving the Prince of Peace in an organisation that existed to make war. He supported much of the motion and paper, but wouldn’t vote for it, he said. The suffering within the motion was not an impersonal force of nature, however the deliberate selection of President Putin’s brutal selections. “We must not appease such behaviour.”
About 31,000 Ukrainians had been killed and tens of 1000’s more had been kidnapped or disappeared, he reported. The paper wrongly suggested that the West bore some responsibility for the war by supposedly reneging on guarantees made to Russia at the top of the Cold War. But Eastern European nations couldn’t be traded away in spheres of influence; nor should their democratic desire to hitch the EU or NATO be refused.
“Let us take no motion that diminishes our total support for those we have now pledged to defend,” he urged. Any vision not founded on humanitarian law and self-determination should be rejected. Mr Kendry ended his speech with “Slava Ukraini [Glory to Ukraine], and Prince of Peace, thy Kingdom come!”
The Acting Bishop of Ely (the Bishop of Huntingdon), the Rt Revd Dagmar Winter, a C of E representative on the Conference of European Churches, said that it was founded in 1959 out of the ruins of the Second World War, and had been revitalised by the war in Ukraine. It had launched a Pathways to Peace programme to develop a network of church leaders and intellectuals to arrange for a post-war Ukraine. “Our support must not end when the guns fall silent.” It also helped churches to reconstruct damaged religious infrastructure in Ukraine.
The Revd Tuomas Mäkipää (Europe) had been working closely with Ukrainian refugees in Helsinki in a centre part-funded by the diocese in Europe. His nation also bordered Russia, and knew first-hand in history the destruction now being faced by Ukraine. As a reservist, he can be called as much as the military if Finland was attacked; his wife would should flee west with their children.
He also criticised the paper for entertaining the “false Russian narrative” that it had been threatened by the West. Totalitarian regimes were dangerous, not only for his or her neighbours, but additionally their very own people, Mr Mäkipää said. “Our Christian response should be that of preaching Christ crucified and resurrected. His blood was shed for our sake, in order that we should always not shed the blood of people who find themselves all precious in his sight.”
Archpriest Stephen Platt (Russian Orthodox Church) said that he was a parish priest who had worked on ecumenism for greater than 30 years. “I exist on this planet of many overlapping cognitive dissonances,” he said. His parish was international, made up of 1 third each of Russians, Ukrainians, and others. His congregation prayed for those killed on either side of the war, and “so we pray at the very least for the peace which passes all understanding.” But he also saw signs of hope, despite the broader fracturing of worldwide Orthodoxy. He praised the nuanced understanding of the complexities of the war evident within the paper and debate, and thanked those that had supported and hosted Ukrainian refugees previously two years. “We feel your prayer, and we’d like your prayer,” he concluded.
Andrew Gray (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) then introduced his amendment, which might add a fourth clause calling on UK political parties to make a commitment to supporting Ukraine until a “just and lasting peace is secured”. This was the appropriate thing to do, Mr Gray said. “Either order our world on rules, or we resort to the law of the jungle, and brute force at all times wins.”
The fate of the continent trusted Ukraine, which he described as “Europe’s Calvary, a moment of tortured anguish where democracy and freedom hang upon a cross”. President Putin hoped that the re-election of Donald Trump would save him, but Europe must stay the course until victory was won. The West couldn’t allow a repeat of the “fiasco” of the Afghanistan withdrawal, which might embolden the evil and guarantee yet more bloodshed, he said.
Mr Sheard thanked Mr Gray for his amendment and his “passion” in moving it, and he was completely satisfied to simply accept it.
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) backed the amendment and the motion. She had hosted two Ukrainian refugees in her home, and greater than 100 other families had also come to remain in North Tyneside because of her church’s enthusiasm. Her town can be for ever modified by their presence, she said, and politicians must proceed to support Ukraine.
The Revd Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford) also supported the amendment for making the paper’s argument more explicit. She had experience with Lithuania, which felt “worryingly sandwiched” between Russia and Europe. She didn’t hear “premature reconciliation or neutrality” within the motion, however the amendment made explicit the necessity to support Ukraine on behalf of the small, weak, and the vulnerable, similar to Lithuania.
Kenson Li (co-opted) cautioned the Synod over the amendment. He wholeheartedly supported Ukraine, but said that language needed to be measured. He knew many Russians living in Britain who couldn’t go home for fear of persecution by the regime. He said that the motion as amended must acknowledge and hearken to the voices of either side. “This shouldn’t be neutrality, but creative justice.”
The amendment was carried.
Fr Thomas Seville CR (Religious Communities) said that he had recently worshipped at a Ukrainian Orthodox church in London, which “felt like heaven”. But members must also keep in mind their Russian Christian brothers and sisters.
The Revd Professor Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter) would support the motion as amended, but was concerned that the paper didn’t pay enough heed to Ukrainian voices. She wanted a clearer emphasis on defining the war as one in all Russian aggression. For many in Ukraine, it was not a territorial dispute, but an existential challenge. “Putin’s ideology shouldn’t be indicative of the character of Russian Orthodox Christianity,” she insisted. Yet the war was not solely driven by politics. His ideology had co-opted the icons, buildings, and liturgy of Russian Orthodoxy, something that had caused “excruciating pain” for a lot of believers.
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) spoke of the importance of prayer. The discussion was fairly high-level around geopolitics, but, as a rural vicar’s wife, she felt engaged in it, because of the Ukrainian refugees who had moved in near by. One church lit a candle at every service and would proceed to achieve this until there was peace in Ukraine. “We pray, and we’ll proceed to wish.”
The Bishop to the Armed Forces, the Bishop of St Germans, the Rt Revd Hugh Nelson (Forces Synodical Council), said that many within the military were deeply concerned concerning the risk of a wider European conflict. The C of E had a vital part to play in times similar to this, he argued, especially with greater than 200 military chaplains. The Ukrainian people bore the brunt of Russian violence, but within the UK, it was soldiers, sailors, and aircrew who felt the anxiety of war probably the most, he said. “Please hold them in your prayers.”
The Archdeacon of Oxford, the Ven. Jonathan Chaffey (Oxford), a former military chaplain, said that he had to assist young members of the forces to navigate a volatile and unsure world. Today, the world was much more brittle and ambiguous, and the Church needed to recommit itself to conversion of heart and mind, and deep, prayerful intercession, he said.
Responding to the talk, Mr Sheard apologised if the motion or paper had not been clear enough in reinforcing the Church’s commitment to supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. Before moving to vote, Mr Sheard led the Synod, standing, in a moment of prayer for peace.
The motion as amended was carried by 254-3, with two recorded abstentions:
That this Synod, recognising the continued suffering and terror brought on by the war in Ukraine and the repercussions and anxiety felt globally for our common future:
(a) affirm with gratitude the churches work with others to support conflict parties and mediators and call for continued efforts to develop pathways to peace, justice and reconciliation in Ukraine;
(b) call on all parties to the conflict to be certain that everyone in Ukraine has full freedom to manifest and practice their religion or belief, in step with international human rights law;
(c) call on all UK political parties to set out ahead of the General Election their vision for a desirable international order and their strategies for ensuring that existing international rules and principles are attractive each domestically and to a broader global constituency.
(d) Call on all UK political parties to affirm their continued support for Ukraine until such time as a just and lasting peace is secured.
