To be honest: I can not give a quick answer to this question. It touches upon many aspects of culture, nation, church history… But I will try to explain some of the basic issues.

As far as I know the term ‘canonical territory’ was not used in Pravoslav literature till after the fall of communism. But the idea behind it is old of course – so I try to react to that.

The disintegration of the USSR also affected the unity of the Russian Pravoslav church. A clear illustration is the institution of the Ukrainian Pravoslav church (Kyiv patriarchate) as a distinct ‘territory’.

1. What does the term ‘canonical territory’ mean?

Before trying to answer the question we have to clear the ground and explain some terminology:

–         the word ‘canon’ means ‘rule’ and points to the decisions made by the councils and synods of the Church. The question which canons or rules have authority was always a big issue in Church History. In fact it was one of the reasons of the divorce of the Eastern and Western churches  in 1054. But also the Old Ritualist Schism in 17^th century imperial Russia was about changes in the ‘canons’!

–         the word ‘territory’ points in the first place – but not only! – to a geographical region. In the Ancient Church patriarchs stood at the head of the church provinces of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antiochia and Jerusalem. These provinces were structured in a hierarchical way parallel to the political structure of the Roman Empire.

II. How did the idea of ‘canonical territory’ develop further?

We have to discern between the developments in the church of the West and the East.

In the West the Roman pope claimed to be the one and only ‘head’ of the church especially after the Western Roman Empire fell apart. In this sense all of the West was one ‘canonical territory’.

This situation changed in the 16^th century with the Protestant Reformation. Now different denominations had to live together. The Thirty Years War made clear to everybody that religious questions could not be settled by force.

For a while political peace was forged with the principle ‘cuius regio – eius religio’: the owner of the region decides about the official religion of the inhabitants of the region. Both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches were controlled by the state - and became territorial churches!

One of the greatest incisions in Western culture and civilization was the Enlightenment of the 18^th century. Apart from many new ideas it also brought a gradual separation of state and church (secularization). This caused a relaxation in the way in which religious questions were solved, though it was not until the 19^th century that all denominations in Western Europe got equal social and civil rights.

In the course of the process of secularization the idea of ‘canonical territory’ in the geographical sense of the word gradually disappeared in Western Europe.

‘Canonical territory’ is still used as a practical geographical division between congregations of the same denomination, but in general different churches – Roman Catholic, Reformed, Baptist etc. - work next to each other in the same ‘territory’.

The situation in the East was different:[i]

–         national churches came into existence, which in the course of time received the status of ‘autocephality’ and thus functioned under their own patriarch. Each Patriarchate developed its own identity, although the primacy of Constantinople was generally acknowledged.

–         the Reformation had not much impact in Eastern Europe and the Pravoslav church had a ‘monopoly position’ in imperial Russia, which was more and more reinforced by the tsars

–         the Enlightenment hardly influenced society of imperial Russia and the process of ‘secularization’ did not take place.

The result was that the church remained under strict state control till 1917. It should also be noticed that from the times of Peter the Great on there was always room – although under certain conditions - for Protestant denominations to work in the ‘canonical territory’ of the Pravoslav church.[ii]

III. How does the term ‘Pravoslav canonical territory’ apply to Ukraine?

Another very exciting question is: in what sense is Ukraine part of the Pravoslav ‘canonical territory’? This question can not be decided by a Protestant from the West. But I want to make some general comments.

Historically we can say that from the moment on that Moscow became ‘autocephal’ (1589) a fracture line came into existence in the ‘territory’ of the Russian Pravoslav church.

Large parts of today’s Ukraine - including the cradle of the Pravoslav church, Kiev – remained part of Poland and later (1569) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. These Ukrainian regions at first did not join the ‘canonical territory’ of Moscow when it became autocephal, but remained under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

This situation changed gradually:

–         in 1667 the region Kiev became part of Muscovite Russia

–         after the partition of Poland (1772-1795) the border of Muscovite Russia moved further to the West - Volhynia was also included in the empire

–         from World War II on the western part of Ukraine (Galicia) became part of the same ‘canonical territory’.

Against this background it becomes clear why several Pravoslav churches in today’s Ukraine claim to be the legal heir of the ‘canonical territory’ of the Pravoslav Church: Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate, Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

IV. ‘Canonical territory’ and Slavic identity

But there are of course important questions left. According to Pravoslav apologists ‘canonical territory’ has a much broader meaning than just a ‘geographical’ one: it is connected to the continuity of the apostolic tradition and the sacraments which Pravoslav authors lack in Protestant denominations f.i. This question will be treated separately.[iii]

But the main connotation of ‘canonical territory’ seems to me that of ‘Slavic identity’.

The argument goes like this:

–         the Russians or Slavic people have special feature and a special culture

–         the Pravoslav church is the Christian expression of this special type of man

–         that’s why culturally and ethnically the Slavic people belong to the Pravoslav church.

This type of argument was used by the 19^th century Slavophiles. As an illustration I cite from the document ‘Official nationality’ formulated by Sergei Uvarov in 1833:

Our common obligation consists in this: that the education of the people be conducted in the joint spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality... In the midst of the rapid collapse in Europe of religious and civil institutions at the time of a general spread of destructive ideas, or the sight of grievous phenomena surrounding us on all sides it is necessary to establish our fatherland on firm foundations upon which is based the well being, strength and life of a people. It is necessary to find the principles which form the distinctive character of Russia and which belong only to Russia; it is necessary to gather into one whole the sacred remnants of Russian nationality and to fasten to them the anchor of our salvation.

It is nearly 200 years ago that this was written. But the interesting thing is, that the same type of reasoning is used by the Pravoslav church today to advocate the prolongation of its ‘monopoly position’ among Slavic people. Protestantism is rejected as a form of Christianity that does not fit to the Slavic people.

A recent Russian Internet article formulates it like this:

‘The patriarch of Moscow has the cultural right to take care of the lost and unbaptized Russians. We have to notice that it is significant that Russians become Christians through the work of the Russian Pravoslav church – and not through some kind of other rites or Christian traditions – i.e. through the acceptance of their national culture. In this way Russians obtain a typical Russian way to understand different aspects of religion, theology, worship and church. It is fully right that they accept Christianity in a form that is in harmony with their psyche and culture. This is the Russian form of Orthodox and Byzantine traditions. Otherwise there is the risk that a psychological disharmony develops in the individual which leads to other problems related to a healthy and adult spiritual life.’[iv]

Some comments

In this nationalist interpretation Christianity and Culture are mixed up in an unhealthy way. Paul tries to become a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks. Apparently as a Jew he did quite well in inter-cultural evangelism. Although in the Roman Empire there was the ‘common ground’ of Hellenist culture and the use of the Greek language, I don’t think the ‘national’ differences in Paul’s time were smaller than today.

It is highly questionable to presume that another form of Christianity as the Pravoslav form might cause psychical problems to Slavic people. This type of reasoning is not only based on nationalism, but also on romantic and idealist theories concerning human races, that are falsified decades ago.

The true Gospel is always healthy. In Tit. 1, 13 Paul exhorts his disciples to have a ‘sound faith’ and he rejects human traditions which restrict the Christian freedom. So to state that only the Pravoslav way of believe is ‘healthy’ to the people is in clear contradiction with the universality of the Gospel. Many traditions in the Pravoslav church are not Christian but pagan – not only in their origin, but also in their actual practice as is made clear by such Pravoslav authors as G.P. Fedotov, G. Florovsky and others.

It will be clear from what I said before that is not possible to use the idea of ‘canonical territory’ against the activities of foreign missionaries. This would imply a return to a pre-Enlightenment dictatorial situation, in which religious questions were settled by princes and tsars.

But at the same time I have to admit that missionaries from the West sometimes behave as if they are the ‘first Christians’ in Eastern Europe. To me this is a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit in the course of centuries in Eastern Europe. For this reason in the Evangelical Reformed Seminary of Ukraine where I teach myself, we want our students to study and value the theology of the Pravoslav church as well.^[v]

The Dutch Reformed mission in Ukraine (of which I am a part) chose as its strategy to cooperate with the Ukrainian Reformed church and not to start its ‘own church’.^[vi] In this way we try to honor the integrity of Ukrainian Reformed people, who want to preach the Gospel in their own language and to implement it into their own culture.

But there is another question here: what is the background of this question about ‘canonical territory’ and ‘foreign mission’. Is its fear to loose ‘authentic’ Slavic culture or identity? How to evaluate the cultural differences between the East and the West? Yes - there is a gap! But you can try to make it wider or more narrow. This an old discussion in the Russian empire: do we want to belong to Europe or not? It was the discussion in relation to the reforms of Peter the Great. It was the discussion between the Slavophiles and Westernizers in the 19^th century.

There is a long tradition of Slavic writers and intellectuals like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenjev and others who always felt they were ‘citizens of two worlds’: Russia and Europe.

My question is: did they become such famous novelists, because they betrayed their own Slavic culture and roots – or was it because they were able to adopt and integrate the best of two cultures? My answer – and that of many Ukrainians and Russians - would be the last!

In the same way many people who feel themselves deeply rooted in their Slavic culture and tradition are Protestants today. They recognize that many so-called ‘Pravoslav traditions’ are not Pravoslav or even Christian at all and they choose deliberately for Protestantism which rejects many of these traditions. But this doesn’t mean that they are detached from their roots.

Some literature

- Русская каноническая территория, http://catholic-church.org/church-unity/r_c_t_r.htm

- Ed. Sharon Linzey & Ken Kaisch, God in Russia. The Challenge of Freedom. New York. 1999.