Paper abstracts
The venue for all paper presentations is the auditorium AT 100 (Agora building, School of Theology annex).
Session 1: Philosophical and theological approaches to justifying war, Thu 25 September 16.00-17.30
Serafim Seppälä (University of Eastern Finland): Violence of Ontology? Dangers of Ontological Emphases in Orthodox Theology
“Ontology of violence” has been a popular subject in recent decades. This paper turns the concepts around and explores the mechanisms that may potentially serve to turn the concept of ontology itself violent, in the context of Orthodox theology, viewed in contrast to Emmanuel Levinas and Michel Foucault’s approach.
Since Aristotle, ontological labelling has been used to justify phenomena such as slavery, subjugation of women, mistreatment of animals, as they have been seen as being inferior by nature, i.e. by their ontological status. In recent decades, Orthodox theologians have applied the concept of “ontology” or “ontological” in almost all areas, offering it as a solution to various anthropological, ecclesiological, psychological, epistemological, ethical and cosmological problems. This is problematic at the outset, as it appears to downplay the actual problem by redefining it and removing it to an abstract conceptual sphere, potentially exposing it to misusage.
In what way the ontological emphases in modern Orthodox theology—particularly, John Zizioulas, Christos Yannaras, and Vladimir Lossky—can unintentionally open the door to violent patterns of thought? These thinkers emphasize “ontology” as the grounding of personhood, communion, and ecclesial life. For Zizioulas, being is relational; the person exists only as communion. Yannaras similarly grounds ethics in ontology, contrasting Greek patristic “relational ontology” with Western essentialism. Lossky’s apophaticism and the essence–energies distinction develops a theological ontology rooted in mystery and deification. However, when this well-intended theological language becomes absolutized or confined to “us” at the expense of the Other, it risks ontologizing identities in ways that exclude, hierarchize, or deny self-definition and change.
By contrast, Levinas criticizes ontological thinking that absorbs or reduces the Other into totality. For him, any system that defines the Other in advance risks violence. Foucault, from a different angle, uncovers how ontological categories sustain systems of exclusion, surveillance, and control in modern institutions. According to these perspectives, even a theology of communion may become coercive if it prefigures what it means to be a “person” or “Church member” in fixed terms that fail to truly hear the Other.
While Orthodox ontology aims to be therapeutic and divinizing, it is not immune to the negative effects of ontological closure. A critical, dialogical ontology—open to otherness, change, and asymmetry (in Levinas’s sense)—is needed. To remain faithful to its apophatic and kenotic core, Orthodox theology should continually interrogate its own ontological assumptions in dialogue with both the tradition of the early Church and contemporary ethical critique.
Olga Tomyuk (Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg): The Creation of the Artificial “Heroon” River (in Chersones, Crimea) and Its Stylization as the Site of Prince Volodymyr’s Baptism in the Context of the Russo-Ukrainian War
The contribution provides insight into an ongoing interdisciplinary doctoral project examining the conceptual, theological, and ritual dynamics of sacralization in the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches (Orthodox Church of Ukraine and Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)) in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Both religious and extra- or non-religious forms of sacralization are considered.
Such processes of sacralization can be observed in connection with a construction project in Crimea, specifically the recently completed “New Chersones” in the ancient city of Chersones. Since Crimea’s annexation by Russia in 2014, Chersones has been portrayed by Russian Orthodox clergy, church leaders, and political actors — especially Vladimir Putin — as a sacred site, a “Russian Mecca,” even equated with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This multifaceted sacralization serves to legitimize the annexation of Crimea politically, historically, and theologically, and constructs a continuity worth describing between the Russian nation, state, and Orthodoxy. The related founding myth is anchored in Chersones and presented by Putin as a “monolithic history” extending to the current Russo-Ukrainian War.
Beyond the description of the construction project of the “New Chersones,” its planning, implementation, and the attribution of specific meanings, the paper also deals with the artificial “Heroon River,” completed alongside the so-called museum complex. The contribution analyzes the attribution of a specific sacredness to this river, such as its stylization as the site of Prince Volodymyr’s baptism — a portrayal contested in Ukrainian discourses and countered by efforts to renaturalize the Potschajna River in Kyiv.
This draws on the concept of sacralization as a processual category of social transformation, as developed by Magnus Schlette and Volkhard Krech, while rivers are approached as concepts capable of mythologization or metaphorical significance, such as through river metaphors, origin myths, or sacred geographies. Ukrainian cultural scholar Galyna Sporadets has already explored such attributions in her fruitful analysis of the Dnipro River, identifying, among others, a “religious river concept” that assigns symbolic and sacred functions to the river, embedding it into a specific collective religious and national imagination.
The analysis of the “Heroon River” — its spatial design, symbolic context, and religious or mythopoetic semantics — demonstrates how sacralization can manifest materially and discursively, showing how rivers as conceptual elements contribute to the formation of sacred spaces. Furthermore, this research connects to further research fields such as Material Religion, sacred geography, and sacred architecture.
Timo Kivimäki (University of Bath): Comparison of Orthodox and Christian pacifist perspectives of the Just War Tradition
This paper compares selected Orthodox perspectives, and Christian pacifist perspectives with predominantly Catholic interpretations of the Just War Tradition. It investigates and challenges the ethical premise of a common interpretation of the Just War tradition – namely, that war can constitute a “lesser evil” than the atrocities it seeks to prevent, and that it may represents the optimal response to such atrocities. The paper’s main contribution to the ethical debate is a consequentialist critique of the “lesser evil” assumption, which remains unproven within ethical discourse. It examines the consequences of adhering to various interpretations of Christian teachings on the use of force, modelling these interpretations through utility theory and game theory, and analysing how adherence to specific doctrines has influenced the reduction of organized violence in the post–Cold War era.
Empirical evidence from conflict statistics reveals correlations between a relational (rather than agent-centric) approach – emphasizing preferences rather than external disincentives or deterrence – and subsequent reductions in organized violence. This speaks against the usefulness of the use of force in dealing with atrocities. Furthermore, conflict statistics tend to suggest that unilateral humanitarian interventions escalate conflict in their interactive settings by helping violent mobilisation on the side opposing the intervention. Interventions tend to kill the people they declare to protect as justified war action. This seems to be the case even when intervention’s direct effect on fatalities is not escalatory. These findings are significant, as they suggest that Christian pacifism is not a naïve response to violence, but rather offers substantial advantages over more belligerent, Just War-based prescriptions.
Anni-Maria Peltola (University of Eastern Finland): Bible References in Statements Given by Patriarch Kirill in the Context of the Russo-Ukrainian War
This study systematically examines the logical structure of biblical argumentation in Patriarch Kirill’s speeches during the Russo-Ukrainian War. By applying Stephen Toulmin’s argumentation model, it identifies patterns of justification used to frame Russia’s military actions within a religious framework. The research hypothesizes that biblical references serve an essential argumentative function, reinforcing either the legitimization of military aggression or the alignment of Russian Orthodoxy with state policies.
Given the ongoing war in Ukraine, this study remains highly relevant. Kirill’s statements have provoked international debate, impacting ecumenical relations and theological discourse. By exposing the inner mechanics of religious argumentation, the research contributes to a critical understanding of how theological rhetoric shapes moral and political decisions in wartime.
The study examines Patriarch Kirill’s sermons and official statements published on the Russian Patriarchate’s website, focusing on references to biblical justification for Russia’s geopolitical stance and Orthodox identity. The research is conducted in three phases:
1. Argumentation Analysis of Kirill’s Statements – Applying Stephen Toulmin’s argumentation model, the study breaks down claims, warrants, and implicit assumptions, identifying how biblical citations function within Kirill’s rhetorical structure.
2. Diachronic Exegetical Analysis – Investigating the historical and theological development of the cited biblical passages, assessing their role in traditional scriptural interpretation.
3. Text-Internal Argumentation Analysis – Determining the original function of the cited passages within their biblical context, clarifying whether Kirill’s use aligns with their intended meaning or constitutes a strategic reinterpretation.
This methodological approach allows for a systematic evaluation of how religious argumentation constructs persuasive narratives within ideological discourse. By providing a structured analysis of biblical argumentation within Kirill’s rhetoric, this study offers valuable insights into how religious discourse can be employed to shape geopolitical narratives. Understanding these mechanisms not only contributes to theological scholarship but also aids in assessing the broader societal implications of faith-based political messaging in contemporary conflicts.
Session 2: National, state and political pressures on churches, Fri 26 September 9.00-10.30
Gražina Bielousova & Milda Ališauskienė (Vytautas Magnus University): A paradigmatic case of religious securitization: the Lithuanian government’s support for the establishment of the Orthodox Exarchate under the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2022–2024
This paper analyzes the Lithuanian government’s support for the establishment of the Orthodox Exarchate under the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2022–2024 as a paradigmatic case of religious securitization. In the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the Russian Orthodox Church’s overt alignment with Kremlin military and ideological narratives—including Patriarch Kirill’s theological legitimation of aggression—the Lithuanian Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, came to be viewed not merely as a religious community but as a potential vector of foreign influence and a threat to national sovereignty. Public trust further eroded when several Orthodox priests were defrocked for refusing to commemorate Patriarch Kirill in their prayers.
Drawing on sociohistorical analysis and media discourse, we examine the Lithuanian government’s intervention on behalf of the defrocked priests who appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople and initiated the formation of a new ecclesial structure in Lithuania. Using the theoretical frameworks of securitization theory (Buzan 1998), the state of exception (Agamben 2005), and postcolonial critiques of Russian imperialism, we argue that this state involvement constitutes a breach of the constitutional principle of church-state separation (Article 43 of the Lithuanian Constitution). However, state actors justified their actions as a response to an existential geopolitical threat and framed them as an act of “restoring historical justice” linked to Lithuania’s pre-imperial Orthodox legacy.
This restoration, however, remains deeply ambivalent. While it raises important questions about religious freedom and the securitization of religious minorities, it also highlights how Lithuania’s postcolonial trauma continues to shape both domestic and foreign policy. Ultimately, this case reveals how Orthodoxy—and Lithuania itself—remain entangled in broader geopolitical contestations between East and West. It complicates narratives of religious autonomy and neutrality in post-Soviet Europe, exposing the ways in which Orthodoxy is instrumentalized in processes of national boundary-making, collective memory, and statecraft under conditions of war.
Alexander Zanemonets (Institute of Eastern Christian Studies. Radbound University): Orthodox Church and other Christian minorities in Israel/Palestine in the midst of Arab–Israeli conflict
Serhii Yepik (Kyiv National University of Trae and Economics): The transformation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) in the context of Ukraine’s political turbulence and full-scale war
I explore the transformation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), formerly under the Moscow Patriarchate, in the context of Ukraine’s political turbulence and full-scale war. In the first part of the paper, I analyze how the UOC operated under political pressure during the Yanukovych era, functioning as a channel for Russian influence. Special attention is paid to the role of oligarchs and politically connected individuals who, despite lacking canonical competence, manipulated the Church’s leadership for personal and ideological gain. This resulted in compromised synodal governance and erosion of theological dialogue.
A case study highlights a businessman-politician with theological education but no ecclesiastical mandate, who influenced church affairs through emotional coercion and ambition, undermining the church’s integrity. The second part of the paper examines the post-2022 redefinition of the UOC’s identity amid Russia’s full-scale invasion. Facing public distrust and internal crisis, the UOC formally distanced itself from the Moscow Patriarchate. I argue that this marked a deep transformation: the Church began responding pastorally to national trauma—supporting war victims, displaced persons, and the spiritually wounded.
Another key focus is the UOC’s defense of Ukrainian liturgical identity in occupied territories, where Muscovite practices threaten local traditions. The Church now serves not only as a spiritual institution but also as a cultural stronghold and symbol of national resilience. My study concludes that the UOC has evolved from a passive instrument of soft power to an active participant in Ukraine’s spiritual and cultural resistance, contributing to both religious renewal and civic consciousness.
Janko Stefanov (University of Veliko Tarnovo): The Influence of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Bulgarian Orthodox Church: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Implications
The paper attempts to explore the question about the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate and the complex effects it has on the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (later in text, BOC). Using the retrospective approach and historical synthesis, it points out to some important past events, how they impacted the BOC and what are their current implications. The paper examines the narratives and attitudes this influence helps steadily maintain among members of the Church and the Bulgarian society in general. It explains why they constitute a problem, how Orthodoxy is ultimately being used to push through the Kremlin’s current political interests in Bulgaria and the importance of overcoming this influence.
I would like to start my abstract with a historical parallel. In 1941, at the height of WWII Bulgaria was drawn on the side of Hitler’s Germany. In late February 1943 an agreement was signed for the deportation of the Bulgarian Jews to forced-labor camps in Germany (at this time their harrowing true purpose was not widely known yet). The agreement was met with a fierce opposition from Bulgarian politicians, intellectuals, ordinary citizens, and finally yet importantly, the BOC. The Holy Synod took a strong stance against the discriminating anti-Jewish state policy – metropolitans Stefan of Sofia and Kirill of Plovdiv were the most active ones. They wrote protest letters to the Government and the Tsar and encouraged many supportive initiatives for the persecuted families. By the summer of 1943 the planned deportations were cancelled. Years later the two metropolitans were recognized from Israel’s Yad Vashem Institute as “Righteous Among the Nations”, while the BOC received a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. It was the only religious institution within Hitler’s territorial control that openly declared its position against the deportation of Jews and ultimately managed to save them.
In late February 2022 another war broke out – the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin started a full-scale invasion on Ukraine. It’s now the summer of 2025, and apart from individual statements from some of the metropolitans, the Holy Synod of the BOC still hasn’t issued an official declaration condemning the war of Putin’s Russia against a sovereign nation, that happens to be its closest neighbor. The reason behind the Synod’s abnormal silence lies within a problematic heritage the BOC had “acquired”, largely from the communist period (1944-1989), that remains present today – the influence of Moscow’s Patriarchate. Although a large part of the faithful and the clergy in Bulgaria are aware of the real purpose it holds, it’ still a factor that’s certainly not to be overlooked – and the recent events surrounding the BOC serves as a clear reminder for that.
Session 3: The armed forces, the media and civil-military relations, Fri 26 September 13.00-14.30
Jan Pohjonen (University of Eastern Finland): Making sense of it all – Kosovo War and ethnoreligious violence in Helsingin Sanomat editorials between 1998 and 1999
The leading newspaper in Finland Helsingin Sanomat described the atrocities perpetrated by the Serb forces in the Kosovo War (1998–1999) as the worst committed during the long breakup of the former Yugoslavia. This study takes a critical look at what led to the paper’s adoption of a partial editorial stance that viewed President Slobodan Milosevic’s security apparatus with scorn while rallying the Finns to aid the outgunned Kosovars. What is uncovered is an editorial board bewildered by bloodshed. Not only did it see the conflict against the backdrop of Balkan’s most recent civil wars but also through the horrors of World War II and the peninsula’s century-long ethnoreligious hatred.
In this study the qualitative content analysis is used to better understand the editorial stance of Finland’s paper of record. This has meant a close and chronological reading of all the Kosovo War related editorials while at the same time keeping an eye on the historical circumstances, they were a part of. For journalistic context, this study utilizes both original interviews with Helsingin Sanomat editors and editorial writers as well as relevant archive material. Both are important as editorials are opinion pieces written behind closed doors but meant to affect change.
The study is a part of the author’s doctoral dissertation research that focuses on the crisis-ridden religious landscapes of the Helsingin Sanomat editorials between 1991 and 1999. The article-based dissertation will include 4 independent articles, two of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals and one is currently pending review. The most recent 2024 article focused on the Kosovo War and religion’s believed role in the conflict.
Tiia Liuski (University of Eastern Finland): Responses to moral challenges, individual growth and thriving – a military chaplaincy perspective
This paper examines the role of military chaplains (MC) in addressing moral injury, facilitating recovery, and fostering individual growth and flourishing. By integrating interdisciplinary research, the paper highlights how MCs provide holistic support through spiritual care, ethical resilience-building, and meaning-making processes. The findings emphasize the importance of proactive approaches, such as ethical training, in equipping soldiers to navigate morally challenging situations. While the study primarily focuses on NATO countries, its insights underscore the critical role of chaplains in promoting soldiers’ psychological and moral well-being. The paper concludes that MCs contribute not only to immediate crisis intervention but also to long-term ethical and emotional resilience, reinforcing their significance in modern military structures.
Jarkko Kosonen (University of Eastern Finland): TBA
Session 4: Churches as instruments of hybrid influence, Fri 26 September 16.15-17.30
Bjarge Schwenke Fors (UiT The Arctic University of Norway): Holy Rus in the High North: The Russian Orthodox Church’s Grey Zone Strategies and Geopolitical Ambitions in the Norwegian Arctic
The term “grey zone” refers to the ambiguous space between traditional concepts of war and peace, where states and non-state actors utilize coercive, subversive, and hybrid strategies to achieve their objectives at the expense of others. This paper explores how the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) employs grey zone strategies to further its own and Russia’s geopolitical and territorial ambitions in the Norwegian Arctic.
The ROC can be seen as a geopolitical actor in its own right. It advances its own geopolitical visions—most notably that of “Holy Rus” (Russian: Svyataya Rus)—and actively engages in territorialization, the marking and claiming of space, both within Russia and in regions beyond its borders, most notably Ukraine. While the ROC enjoys a degree of autonomy, it is closely aligned with the Kremlin’s territorial objectives and its territorializing activities are largely coordinated with those of the Russian regime.
In recent years, the Norwegian regions of Svalbard and Varanger have become focal points for the ROC’s territorial efforts abroad. These areas are located near the Russian border, have historical ties to Russia, and are home to Russian minorities. The ROC’s activities in these regions are evident through tangible actions, such as the erection of large Orthodox crosses, as well as performative practices like pastoral visits, pilgrimages, speeches, and naming rituals, all of which emphasize the Russian and/or Orthodox identity of these areas. Through these actions, the church subtly but effectively challenges and undermines Norwegian sovereignty in the region. By rhetorically framing parts of the Norwegian Arctic as part of “Holy Rus,” the ROC also provides spiritual justification for Russia’s broader geopolitical ambitions in the area.
The paper contributes to ongoing academic debates on the intersection of religion, geopolitics, and international relations. It broadens the understanding of grey zone strategies by illustrating how religious institutions—often regarded as apolitical or spiritual entities—can actively participate in territorialization and support state-driven geopolitical objectives. By examining the Norwegian Arctic, this study offers a nuanced perspective on the interplay between religion and power dynamics in contested borderlands, providing valuable insights into the broader role of religious institutions in shaping international disputes and sovereignty claims.
Using qualitative methods, the study underpinning this paper analyzes interviews, speeches, reports, and media from both Russian and Norwegian perspectives. It also incorporates secondary literature on geopolitics, church-state relations, and Arctic disputes to provide a comprehensive understanding of the ROC’s activities in the High North.
Andriy Dudchenko (Kyiv Orthodox Theological Academy: Instrumentalization of Religion in the Russo-Ukrainian War
Research Question: How has the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) utilized the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir) doctrine to ideologically support Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and what are the consequences for societal division and conflict dynamics?
I will employ a qualitative approach, integrating discourse analysis of ROC statements, Patriarch Kirill’s sermons, liturgical ‘prayer for the Holy Rus’ and resolutions from the World Russian People’s Council (1993–2024) with a historical examination of the “Russian World” doctrine’s role in Ukraine. Primary sources will include open-source materials such as clergy quotes, Russian state media, and UOC-MP documents, supplemented by Tetiana Derkach’s investigations (The Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine: Anatomy of Betrayal). Fieldwork will include eyewitness accounts from occupied areas (e.g., Bucha, 2022), highlighting grassroots perspectives. The analysis will trace the ROC’s influence from the 1990s to the 2022 invasion.
The ROC has instrumentalized the “Russian World” doctrine to frame Ukraine as part of a unified Orthodox civilization under Moscow’s authority, justifying Russia’s military actions as a defense against Western secularism and Ukrainian nationalism. Since the 1990s, the ROC’s network in Ukraine (via the UOC-MP) has propagated pro-Russian ideologies, with figures and groups collaborating with Russian agents. The doctrine, solidified under Patriarch Kirill, has evolved into a ‘theology of war,’ portraying Russia as a messianic ‘katechon’ fighting a Manichaean battle against invented ‘fascists.’ This rhetoric has fueled societal polarization, with some UOC-MP parishioners initially disoriented by Russian propaganda, as evidenced in Bucha. However, grassroots Ukrainian resilience, including interfaith initiatives and the OCU’s counter-narratives, challenges this narrative, though the UOC-MP’s ties to Moscow hinder broader reconciliation.
This paper will enrich academic debates on religion’s role in hybrid warfare by analyzing the ROC’s ideological weaponization through the “Russian World” doctrine. It will highlight the interplay of theology and geopolitics in legitimizing aggression, offering insights into the ROC’s complicity in war crimes (e.g., Bucha) and the challenges of post-war reconciliation. By integrating eyewitness accounts and investigative data, the study will underscore the need for countering divisive religious narratives.