Hennadii Khrystokin, religious scholar, theologian, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, member of the Brotherhood of Sophia
The issue of transitioning or changing jurisdictions for an Orthodox believer is a deeply complex legal and psychological matter. In Orthodoxy, there is neither a theological solution nor even serious discourse regarding jurisdictional changes. The entire ecclesiology is constructed in such a way that switching jurisdictions is discouraged, almost as if it were a contradiction in terms. While individual cases occur and specific situations arise that lead to decisions, there remains no theological justification or canonical basis for such moves.
This complexity is especially pronounced in cases of mutual non-recognition between jurisdictions, where the question of canonical legitimacy is at stake. Sometimes, the issue of transition is tied more to civic-political rather than canonical decisions. In Ukraine, changing jurisdictions is often a consequence of civic-political and personal identity and self-determination.
Thus, each case involves an existential choice—unique, complex, and sometimes dramatic—where a bishop, priest, or layperson must rely on personal conscience, will, intuition, and the courage to take risks. Here, the Orthodox Christian weighs various considerations—canonical, civic, personal, ecclesiastical, corporate, national—as they affect their own judgment.
In other words, one must consider factors that, for a thoroughly canonical Orthodox consciousness (characterized by strict adherence to tradition), are neither regulated nor self-evident. Orthodoxy has rarely engaged in serious discussion about the interaction and significance of national, political, civic, or existential factors in jurisdictional change. There has been ample politicization and an excess of state influence, but little discussion around alternative factors that could affirm that changing jurisdiction is neither a betrayal nor something frightening. Rather, it is a right that is justified by canonical law and church ethics, ensuring that anyone making such a choice does not lose grace or face church or societal condemnation.
Currently, however, this is not the case. Someone who changes jurisdictions essentially feels they are bearing a cross, risking their entire life, and starting over. This is the primary reason many brethren in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church hesitate to make this change. Changing jurisdictions is like admitting that everything one has done, known, or experienced in this jurisdiction must now be re-evaluated and questioned. It essentially requires acknowledgment that one’s previous experience was incomplete and that a truer, fuller experience is now available.
One must be convinced that the new jurisdiction is better and more complete, justifying and necessitating this transition. If one does not see this kind of newness and fullness, is it worth making the switch? And this does not even address the material and other issues complicating the transition.
Therefore, the lack of an appropriate canonical culture and ecclesiastical law to protect individuals who undertake such a transition is a significant reason for the difficulties faced by clergy and laypeople. The essential reforms in the church must address this crucial issue as well. Every priest has the right to make an independent, non-judgmental decision about where they will serve God. Unfortunately, this has turned into a choice between “us” and “them,” or “ours” and “not ours.” However, polarized thinking is not a true Christian solution.