In the context of large-scale Russian aggression, the ongoing crisis within Ukrainian Orthodoxy clearly demands constructive reflection and resolution. The parties involved often display a high degree of antagonism, positioning themselves as irreconcilable opponents. Time and again, we witness how representatives of the OCU and UOC, in asserting the canonicity (truth) of their respective statuses, deny the other the right to freely exist, accusing one another of politicization, ideological manipulation, and resistance to compromise or dialogue. The jurisdictions appear to “speak different languages,” perceive each other’s position as mythological, and envision opposing futures for Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

This situation reveals not only the influence of institutional self-interest but also a deeper issue: the overwhelming dependence of participants’ thinking on their own meta-narratives—stories about history, canonical legitimacy, the causes of the schism, perceived threats, and ways of resolution—that exclude the other from the shared Orthodox heritage of Ukraine. What we are witnessing is not merely a theological or political dispute, but a battle of myths, accusations, and distorted perceptions, with each jurisdiction locked into its exclusive meta-narrative and struggling to break free.

This crisis necessitates theological and scholarly reflection, and a search for mechanisms of restoring dialogue and peaceful coexistence within a shared Ukrainian ecclesial space. Ukrainian Orthodoxy requires demythologization. Our aim is not only to dispel myths about each jurisdiction but to study their origins, develop theological grounds for the possibility and necessity of reconciliation, and affirm the equal canonicity of both jurisdictions. In the long term, this must lead to Eucharistic communion and perhaps even the unification of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

It is also crucial to understand how both sides use the concept of “myth” and what they mean when asserting the “truth” of their own narrative. Each jurisdiction’s confidence in its own version of the truth is accompanied by an equally strong conviction that the opponent’s narrative is false—rejected as a myth that distorts the desired canonical reality. We do not challenge church canons or deny the authenticity of lived histories and identities. Rather, we oppose biased evaluations, mythologizing tendencies, and the devaluation of the other’s position, especially when these foster exclusivism and conflict. As Ukrainian citizens, we must collectively seek a way out of the vicious cycle of mutual accusations.

Our interpretation of “reality” within this project moves beyond the framework of natural sciences, which equate reality solely with empirical facts and historical events. Church reality, especially in times of crisis, resists such singular interpretations. Religious phenomena often constitute “multivalent facts”, and conflict arises when these are interpreted rigidly and destructively. We argue that reality must include the communicative dimension of the Church’s values, aims, and ideals. A “communicative ecclesial reality” implies an open, inclusive Orthodox identity, fidelity to the Gospel, belonging to global Orthodoxy, and solidarity with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

Thus, we regard any simplistic narrative interpretations of complex church phenomena as mythological, in the sense that they fail to account for theological nuance or promote dialogical and solidaristic interaction between jurisdictions. Both Ukrainian Orthodox communities demonstrate examples of such exclusive myths—constructing self-reinforcing value systems that contradict the Church’s unifying and reconciling communicative reality. The conflict, therefore, must be addressed through a rethinking of narrative frameworks that generate division.

We propose a rejection of simplistic, inaccurate, and destructive definitions of the other’s identity that contribute to antagonistic and mutually exclusive models of church community. Instead, we advocate approaching the Ukrainian Orthodox crisis in light of the ideals of “perfect ecclesial communication”—the Church of Christ—and “ideal civic communication”—a united and lawful Ukrainian nation. The search for consolidation within Ukrainian Orthodoxy is an essential precondition for Ukraine’s survival.

All participants in this ecclesial crisis must agree that repetitive accusations, such as mantras about the “non-canonicity of the OCU” or “Moscow Orthodoxy of the UOC,” do not offer solutions. Denying the presence of the Church in the other gives rise to two conflicting narrative models—both mythological. Yet the communicative reality of the Church is far more complex and requires the courage to acknowledge the other’s existence and abandon entrenched prejudices.

The Sophia Brotherhood’s initiative is grounded in the understanding that there de facto exists in Ukraine a single Orthodox Church of Christ, represented by two canonical jurisdictions. We affirm each jurisdiction’s right to its own history and identity—so long as neither identity denies or simplifies the shared ecclesial reality. The Ukrainian state, civil society, and international legal norms all have an important role to play in ensuring peaceful coexistence between these jurisdictions.