RU 
UK 
➕ Table of Contents
Johannesburg, June 2025 — The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) has concluded its recent meeting in Johannesburg, adopting two statements that were expected to address the ongoing war in Ukraine. Yet, as Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun insightfully observes, while the documents contain some clear language of condemnation, they also reveal troubling signs of Russian propaganda influence, moral equivocation, and selective outrage.
A Statement on Peace, or a Platform for Propaganda?
One of the documents, titled "Statement on Threats to Peace and Security: A Kairos Moment for Just Peace", begins by clearly condemning “the intensified Russian missile attacks on civilian communities and infrastructure” as well as “the crimes of the Russian authorities escalating in their ongoing invasion and war against the people of Ukraine.” The text also stresses the need for “a just peace that does not reward the aggressor for their crimes.”
However, as Hovorun notes, the statement takes a problematic turn when it expresses “concern over reports of attacks on passenger trains in Russia’s Bryansk and Kursk regions... allegedly attributed to Ukraine.” This framing, devoid of critical context — such as the military use of those routes and Russian negligence that led to civilian casualties — enables a false moral equivalence between Russia’s deliberate targeting of civilians and Ukraine’s military defense actions.
Silence on Ukraine, but Not on Israel
Hovorun points out that the WCC continues its long-standing pattern of selectively addressing international conflicts. In a separate statement, the Council urges Israel to “refrain from attacks and violations of international law” in Iran, Gaza, and the Palestinian territories — yet offers no similar appeal to the Russian government or the Russian Orthodox Church, which openly supports the war against Ukraine. Nor does it acknowledge the atrocities committed by Hamas.
When Atrocities Are Ignored
The second relevant document, "On Protection from Atrocity Crimes", recognizes historic genocides — including those against Armenians, Assyrian Christians (Sayfo), Pontic Greeks, and others. Yet, as Hovorun critically observes, it omits any mention of atrocities committed by Russia against Ukrainians — including those that many international experts argue constitute genocide.
The document accuses the International Criminal Court (ICC) of bias for allegedly favoring prosecutions in the Global South. However, Hovorun highlights the irony that the same ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for the deportation of Ukrainian children — a fact the WCC fails to acknowledge.
Complicity in the Crime
Hovorun goes further, pointing to the WCC's own troubling entanglement with these crimes. In May 2022, a WCC delegation visited Russian camps in Rostov Oblast where abducted Ukrainian children were being held. Although the delegation sought permission to visit other camps not part of the official Russian itinerary, their request was denied — and yet they proceeded anyway, effectively legitimizing the program.
By aligning with the Russian agenda and failing to publicly denounce the forced deportation and re-education of Ukrainian children, Hovorun argues, the WCC crosses the line from silence to complicity.
Institutional Bias and Exclusion
Structurally, the WCC continues to shield the Russian Orthodox Church while marginalizing Ukraine’s Orthodox Church (OCU). Archimandrite Filaret (Bulekov), who previously mocked the WCC’s anti-war statements, was re-elected to its Executive Committee. Meanwhile, the OCU — which represents millions of Ukrainian faithful — was once again denied membership, even as several other churches from Africa and Germany were admitted.
Ukraine’s Own Missteps
To be fair, Hovorun notes that Ukraine’s religious and political representatives have occasionally played into this marginalization. For example, during discussions about abducted children in Johannesburg, attention was redirected to claims about the seizure of a UOC cathedral in Chernivtsi and the alleged beating of a local priest — allowing the issue of mass child deportations to be conveniently sidelined.
As Hovorun underscores, the Johannesburg meeting of the WCC reveals a troubling institutional reluctance to confront aggression and injustice when the aggressor is Russia. The Council’s selective memory and double standards — particularly its silence on the suffering of Ukrainian civilians and children — undermine its credibility as a moral authority.
In what the WCC itself calls a “Kairos moment,” the real test is not rhetorical balance, but moral clarity. And on that score, the WCC continues to falter.