In a striking interview on the podcast PIKË with journalist Veton Surroi, Nenad Čanak, leader of the Social Democratic League of Vojvodina, challenged one of Serbia’s most powerful institutions: the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC). He labeled it a “pure fraud”, arguing that it is neither authentically Serbian nor spiritually devoted to its people, but instead a political instrument with deep ties to power.
 |
| Screenshof of Nenad Čanak while being interviewed by Veton Surroi |
A Church Built on Political Foundations
Čanak argued that the Serbian Orthodox Church is not a historically organic religious institution but rather a construct born in 1918, following the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. According to him, the church reinvented itself during that period through political manipulation, positioning itself as the guardian of Serbian national identity while lacking true spiritual legitimacy.
By doing so, the SOC gained massive influence, but, Čanak insisted, it failed to remain close to the Serbian people in the way an authentic Orthodox Church should. Instead of serving believers, it built an institutional power base aligned with state agendas.
Politics in Priest’s Clothing
One of the most controversial aspects of Čanak’s critique was the SOC’s closeness to political regimes in Belgrade. He accused the church of acting as an extension of state authority, using faith as a vehicle to maintain and expand political control.
This, Čanak argued, is not unique to Serbia. He drew a parallel with the Russian Orthodox Church, suggesting both institutions operate less as spiritual communities and more as systems of power and money, consolidating influence through religious symbolism.
Is the Serbian Orthodox Church Truly “Serbian”?
Čanak rejected the label “Serbian” for the church altogether. From a canonical Orthodox perspective, he emphasized, a legitimate church must remain rooted in the needs of its local believers, representing their concerns authentically. The SOC, in his view, has long abandoned this principle, choosing instead to serve political elites rather than ordinary worshippers.
This accusation cuts deep, as the SOC has historically portrayed itself as the cornerstone of Serbian cultural and national identity. If Čanak’s argument is correct, then the institution functions less as a spiritual body and more as an instrument of nationalist ideology.
The Dangerous Fusion of Faith and Politics
During the conversation, Veton Surroi highlighted the dangers of religion intertwining with state power—especially when tied to foreign geopolitical interests. He warned that the SOC’s alignment with Russia, particularly under Patriarch Porfirije’s leadership, represents a “terrible combination” with potentially destabilizing consequences for the Balkans.
The concern is not only domestic but regional. As Serbia promotes ideas of a “Serbian World”, faith and nationalism converge into a powerful tool for expansionist ambitions, putting pressure on Kosovo and threatening broader Balkan stability.
Manipulation, Power, and Money
Both Čanak and Surroi agreed that the SOC’s real focus lies not on spiritual values but on accumulating wealth and political power. With close ties to ruling regimes and strong influence in Serbian society, the church has positioned itself as a gatekeeper of identity and loyalty.
But, according to Čanak, this dominance comes at a cost: the betrayal of its believers. Rather than guiding people through faith, the church uses its platform to maintain nationalistic and political authority.
Why This Debate Matters Now
The debate over the SOC is not simply a religious dispute. It reflects the broader struggle over democracy, identity, and regional stability in the Balkans.
-
For critics like Čanak, exposing the church as a political fraud is essential to breaking Serbia’s cycle of nationalism and authoritarianism.
-
For others, defending the church is synonymous with defending Serbian tradition and unity.
What cannot be denied is that the SOC plays a central role in shaping Serbian politics and foreign relations. Its connections with Moscow deepen the stakes, raising fears of external influence in Balkan affairs at a time of fragile peace.
Conclusion
Nenad Čanak’s bold statement that the Serbian Orthodox Church is a “pure fraud” challenges a century-old narrative. By exposing its political ties, questioning its authenticity, and warning about its Russian alignment, he pushes for a deeper conversation about the role of religion in politics and its impact on regional security.
As long as the SOC continues to act as both a religious and political force, Serbia and the Balkans will remain in a tense balance between faith, power, and identity.