**1. Introduction**

Religion is connected with ecology. This is widely accepted by scholars of religious studies (Gottlieb 2006). Grim and Tucker (2014), the editors of the Harvard book series "*Religions of the World and Ecology*", argued that religions provide for people the basic interpretive stories of who humans are and what their nature is, where humans have come from, and where they are going. Religions suggest to humans how they should treat other humans and how they should relate to nature.

Eco-theology, creation care, and environmental leadership are noteworthy themes for the world's three major Christian traditions—Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Protestantism (Blanchard 2014; Chryssavgis 2013; Hessel and Ruether 2007; Jenkins 2008; Schaefer 2011). O'Brien (2010) stressed that the well-being of people and a balanced biodiversity on the earth is a point of intersection between Christian faith and ethics, social justice and environmentalism, science and politics, and global problems and local solutions.

In recent decades, many leaders and theologians of various Christian traditions have met to address the growing ecological challenges on the earth. While they might disagree on various Christian dogmas, they concurred in saying that "the Christian community has a special obligation to provide moral leadership and an example of caring service to people and to all God's creation" (Oxford Declaration on Global Warming 2002). The international participants of the Lausanne Global Consultation on Creation Care lately agreed that ecology is "a gospel issue within the lordship of Christ". The consultation's declaration—A Jamaica Call for Actions (Creation Care and the Gospel: Jamaica Call to

**Citation:** Negrov, Alexander, and Alexander Malov. 2021. Eco-Theology and Environmental Leadership in Orthodox and Evangelical Perspectives in Russia and Ukraine. *Religions* 12: 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12050305


Academic Editors: Bradley Nassif and Tim Grass

Received: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 25 April 2021 Published: 27 April 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Action 2012)—stated, "Many of the world's poorest people, ecosystems, and species of flora and fauna are being devastated by violence against the environment in multiple ways ... . We can no longer afford complacency and endless debate. Love for God, our neighbors ... and the wider creation, as well as our passion for justice, compel us to 'urgent and prophetic ecological responsibility'".

Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism are well represented in Russia and Ukraine. Many people in these countries identify themselves as Christians and view religion as an important part of their lives. Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox and Evangelical churches are somewhat concerned with ecological problems in the world. While church leaders note that an ecological theme is not the most important for the Church today, they will argue that this theme should not be neglected as unimportant. Thus, they periodically encourage their believers to safeguard the integrity of God's creation by sustaining and renewing the life of the earth.

Both Evangelical and Orthodox Christians in Russia and Ukraine periodically convene conversations around ecology and faith1. For example, the leaders of the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches authorized an annual day of prayer for the environment (Epiphanius 2019; JMHS 2015). Their clergies are encouraged to preach on this day, the first of September, about Christian ecological stances and remind their parishioners that the natural environment is the spiritual responsibility of Orthodox believers (JMHS 2015). Although Russian and Ukrainian Evangelicals occasionally talk about protecting, restoring, and rightly sharing God's Creation, they have not commenced in their churches a day of prayer for the environment, and do not urge preaching around faith and ecology.

Despite a vast interest among scholars to investigate the religious perspectives and practices among the Orthodox and Evangelicals, to this point no attention has been given to compare their perspectives on the issues of eco-theology, creation care, and environmental leadership. Thus, this article is bridging a gap in scholarly literature and offers the impetus for further studies. The goal of this article is to present the results of analysis of research interviews with 101 Evangelicals (Baptist, Pentecostal, and Charismatic) and 50 Orthodox Christians from Russia and Ukraine. Open-ended questions were used to gather and compare theological and practical perspectives related to ecology and Christianity. We argue that Evangelical and Orthodox churches in Ukraine and Russia can learn from each other and impact their communities: engage minds, touch hearts, feed souls, and respond to environmental challenges as an expression of their faith.

From a theoretical point of view this study relates to several theoretical paradigms. For example, it illuminates some of the assumptions of social constructionist theoretical ideas which postulate that environmental claims are produced by different forms of social construction. Environmental constructionist sociology argues that the existence and force of social constructs determine the acknowledgment of ecological problems and search for environmental solutions. A good discussion about social construction of environmental issues and problems is presented by Hannigan (2014). Our research shows that the eco– theology and environmental leadership of Christians in Russia and Ukraine is tied to what environmental sociologists call the "constructionist–realist" debate.

This study contributes to theoretical debate within missiology and practical theology. It could be used, for example, as a case study that stimulates the advancement of an ecologically grounded Christian practical theology. For practical theologians (especially in Russia and Ukraine), it is important to advance a theological, eschatological, and ecological anthropology that is undeniably needed in the midst of the current global ecological crisis. Such an anthropology, in the words of Jennifer Ayres, "should necessitate a willingness to live in and for our unfinished world" (Ayres 2017, p. 60).

#### **2. Background for This Study**

*2.1. Global and Local Assessments of Ecology*

It can be said that environmental concerns have both global and local contexts. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) recently completed a massive assessment of global ecology and found that nature and its vital contributions to people, which together embody biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, were deteriorating worldwide and declining more rapidly than ever (IPBES 2019). In 2020, the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment published a local environmental assessment relative to the Russian Federation. This report pointed to various problems related to biodiversity and ecosystems within the Russian Federation (Russian State Report 2020). The alarm about the unhealthy local ecology was also articulated by Ukrainian authorities (Ukrainian National Report 2018).

The Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) and Institute of Social Research conducted sociological research on the environmental issues in modern Russia (Analytical Review: Environmental Agenda 2020). The study noted that 30% of adult Russians said the environmental situation in Russia was very bad. According to 53% of Russians, the local ecology had deteriorated in the previous 2–3 years. At the same time, 40% of adult Russians believed that the problem of ecological crisis and global warming was overblown and exaggerated. This was shown by VSIOM's survey of 1600 Russians aged 18 and older (Climate Change and How to Fight It 2020).

The health of the planet is the common concern of humankind. Nowadays, it is often acknowledged by intergovernmental agencies, local governmental institutions, and civil organizations of all kinds and sizes. Ostap Semerak, a Ukrainian politician and former Minister of Ecology, recently pointed out that the development and conservation of biological diversity was a worthy cause for which Ukrainian society, together with the church and authorities, must unite (News Report 2017).

#### *2.2. Orthodox Christianity and Evangelicalism in Russia and Ukraine*

In the history of Russia and Ukraine, Orthodox Christianity and Evangelicalism each have their own historical developments (Baron and Kollmann 1997; Magocsi 2010; Nikol'skaya 2009; Pospielovsky 1998; Ratajeski 2014; Riasanovsky and Steinberg 2019). In the past and in our time, the Russian and Ukrainian Evangelicals and Orthodox play their roles in the ongoing arduous social and political life of their countries (Clark and Vovk 2020; Krawchuk and Bremer 2017; Metreveli 2020; Papkova 2011; Richters 2013; Shestopalets 2019). Several recent publications revealed their achievements and/or failures (for example, see Kazmina and Filippova 2005; Lyubashchenko 2010).

There exists vast literature about Evangelicals and Orthodox in Russia and Ukraine. The religious, historical, and sociocultural connections between these Christian traditions and their communities can be traced in various discourses: biblical interpretation (Negrov 2006, 2008; Likhosherstov 2013); mission of the Church (Kochetkov 2002; Sawatsky 2004; Ubeivolc 2016); and theological teachings (Fiddes and Songulashvili 2013; Puzynin 2011). Occasionally, scholars compare the Orthodox and Evangelicals through various lenses. For example, in a recent article, Elena Prutskova (2021) presented the analysis of two surveys that aimed to measure religiosity among different Christian groups in Russia. She concluded that the level of religiosity among the Russian Orthodox parishioners is slightly lower than representatives of the Evangelical Protestants in Russia.

There should not be an assumption that there are no differences among the Evangelicals and that the Russian and the Ukrainian Orthodox churches are identical in their theological and ideological ways. For example, it should be noted that the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine recently received autocephaly and is partially recognized by autocephalous Orthodox Churches (the reasons for Ukrainian Orthodox autocephaly are well articulated by Cyril Hovorun (2020a)). Yet, there is disapproval toward this church from the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) in Ukraine. The messianic discourse ideology is widespread in contemporary Russia (Kushnir 2019). The so-called concept of symphonia of church–state relationships when the Orthodox Christianity becomes political religion (Hovorun 2018) is appropriate to the Orthodox Church in the Russian Federation. Cyril Hovorun (2020b), however, points out that in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, there is

a desire for a "symphony" with civil society, instead of a traditional symphonic relationship with the state.

#### **3. Method**

The inquiry results presented in this article were based on qualitative research that was characterized by gathering multiple forms of data such as interviews, focus groups and documents, rather than relying on a single data source. The main source of data was collected in individual interviews and focus groups. This information was complemented by the analysis of relevant Orthodox and Evangelical documents and literature.

The methodology of qualitative investigation is systematically reviewed by academicians (Creswell and Poth 2018; Gubrium and Holstein 2002; King and Horrocks 2010; Tracy 2020). Analysis of documents and research interviewing are a very well accepted approach in qualitative research (King and Horrocks 2010; Creswell and Poth 2018). It is also commonly accepted that the methodology of qualitative study has an evolving design rather than a tightly prefigured design. Hatch (2002), Marshall and Rossman (2010), and Creswell and Poth (2018) indicate that qualitative inquiry has several vital characteristics. For example: (1) it focuses on general participants' perspectives, their meanings, and their multiple subjective views; and (2) the process of designing a qualitative study emerges during inquiry (e.g., the size of the sample and/or list of questions may eventually evolve), etc.

This study does not analyze how the eco-theological ideas and practices of environmental leadership depend on specific factors such as micro ecclesiastic/doctrinal identities among Orthodox or Evangelicals, geographical locations, residential patterns (urban, nonurban), marriage status, education level, age, or other demographics. Our analysis of interview and focus-group materials epitomizes what Creswell (2013) names to be a holistic account of qualitative inquiry. According to Creswell, qualitative researchers try to develop a complex broad sketch under study. They later report the larger picture that emerges and are not bound by the analysis of tight relationships among micro factors. Rather, the researchers identify the complex interactions of factors in general context (Creswell 2013, p. 47). Therefore, the current study focuses on general tendencies in ecotheological thinking and practices of environmental leadership among Evangelical and Orthodox Christians in Russia and Ukraine. This study investigates the larger picture that allows further research projects to dive into the analysis of links and/or cause-and-effect relationships among other significant factors.

#### *3.1. Questions and Sampling of Individual Interviews/Focus Group*

This study comprised face-to-face and online (Zoom, telephone) qualitative research interviewing of 151 participants from Orthodox and Evangelical religious communities in Russia and Ukraine. Following is the list of interview and focus-group questions:


After a random selection of first respondents, a snowball sampling strategy was used to identify other potential subjects. A snowball sampling strategy utilizes the help of research participants to recruit additional research subjects (Patton 2009; Tracy 2020). Participants were asked to encourage others to come forward for interview. When new individuals were named, the researchers used a "cold-calling" technique, contacting the

individual out of the blue. Some participants were recruited by researchers via social-media networking platforms such as Facebook and VKontakte.

We interviewed 50 Orthodox (10 females and 40 males; 44 from Ukraine and 6 from Russia) and 101 Evangelical (33 females and 68 males; 62 from Russia and 39 from Ukraine) Christians. Twelve focus groups were organized with the participation of the Russian and Ukrainian Evangelicals.

It is important to explain the different sample sizes among the Evangelicals and Orthodox. The Evangelical Christians (individually or in groups) were interviewed before enforced social distancing and lockdown related to COVID-19. Various restrictions related to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) blocked a possibility to interview groups of Orthodox Christians. Thus, as stated above, the researchers recruited the Orthodox believers only for individual interviews.

The inclusion criteria for the study were men and women who were:


The sample for this study was chosen to represent a diversity of Christians' gender, church status (priests, deacons, laity), and location (urban, rural, suburban). It should be noted, however, that the controversial and novel subject of the research significantly hampered the research process. In our experience, many Orthodox believers were quite reluctant to be interviewed compared to the Evangelicals. In addition, while the interviews were conducted both in the form of direct and telephone conversations, they happened in the context of the still-prevailing coronavirus pandemic in Russia and Ukraine. Thus, certain restrictions and limitations have resulted from it.

Notice that, despite our commitment to having an equal proportion of respondents from Ukraine and Russia, Orthodox Christians from Russia were less open to participate in the research. The following response to the interview invitation serves as an example of this tendency: "*I am the Church's bureaucrat. Talk to laity. I personally don't mind, but you should have an official request for the right to interview me. It's not easy to interview me".* Another potential Orthodox respondent from Russia declined to be interviewed and replied as follows: "*Imagine that today is the Fall of 1941 and you are conducting this research* ... *. Given the conditions of the ongoing war against humanity (literally there is World War III, 'Covid-fascism') the problems of your research topic are less relevant, unfortunately*".

### *3.2. Data Collection and Analysis*

The researchers asked participants the open-ended questions (listed above), which helped stimulate thought among interviewees and encouraged them to express their views without inhibition, fear of interviewer bias, or unnecessary limitations (Creswell and Poth 2018; Tracy 2020). The interviews were recorded, and they were transcribed either in Russian or Ukrainian languages. After analyzing the transcripts of all individual and group interviews using MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software, we compared Evangelical and Orthodox perspectives on environmental leadership (creation care) and eco-theology.

In the process of interpretation of the data, we were able to establish "themes", "categories", or "concepts" that were embedded in the data. The interpretation of the answers of our respondents allowed us to establish hierarchical codes; i.e., "umbrella" categories that made conceptual sense. In our research, we followed the coding techniques suggested by Saldaña (2016).

#### *3.3. Limitations*

Our document analysis, as a form of qualitative research, focuses on the selected official Orthodox and Evangelical documents and specialized literature. This is an exemplary rather than an exhaustive document analysis. Moreover, no analysis has been performed to interpret the public records (the official, ongoing news of Churches' activities, annual reports, etc.), personal documents of Evangelical or Orthodox believers (accounts of an individual's convictions and actions expressed via e-mails, Facebook posts, reflections/journals, etc.), and/or artifacts (flyers, posters, printed educational materials, etc.).

The current study focuses on general tendencies in eco-theological thinking and practices of environmental leadership among Evangelical and Orthodox Christians in Russia and Ukraine. It does not analyze how these ideas and practices depend on specific micro factors (doctrinal/canonical identities, geographical locations, residential patterns (urban, nonurban), marriage status, education level, age, or other demographics). Such analysis was beyond the scope of this study.

The current study also does not represent a longitudinal analysis of eco-theology and environmental leadership among Russian and Ukrainian Christians. Since there has been no previous study done on this topic, it was not possible to make such an analysis. However, future research undertakings ought to investigate how eco-theological perspectives and practices of environmental responsibility will be changed among both Evangelicals and Orthodox. Further studies can identify, analyze, and explain similarities and differences in eco-theology and environmental leadership among the Evangelical and Orthodox Christians in Russia and Ukraine by paying attention to specific Church categorizations and sociodemographic profiles.
