Bishop Mykhail of Komana, Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine
This statement was delivered during a panel discussion at the Round Table “Contemporary Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Debunking Myths for the Sake of Reconciliation Among Orthodox Christians in Ukraine,” held on April 29, 2025, in Kyiv. The event was part of the educational and analytical project “Contemporary Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Debunking Myths for the Sake of Reconciliation Among Orthodox Christians and Consolidation of Ukrainian Society,” organized by the St. Sophia Brotherhood with the support of Renovabis.
I have observed a very encouraging trend. At least today, I saw people not only reflecting (and not only the clergy, but also the laity), but also beginning to admit that not everything is perfect in our Church. When there is self-criticism and reflection on our shortcomings, it usually means we acknowledge the problem and are looking for solutions.
Because when at conferences we hear statements like: everything is great, parishes are growing, people are increasing, money is flowing, and soon everyone will be Orthodox and there will be no non-Orthodox left in the world — we realize we’re living in a utopia or simply avoiding reality. I would even say this: I believe that one of the greatest virtues of our time is healthy thinking. When the voice of sober, balanced thinking is heard, it means that there is hope, and the process is moving forward.
Yes, there are many questions, but this very trend already gives hope that this voice will be heard by others. Even those who may not be deeply immersed in the problems of contemporary Orthodoxy or Christianity in general — when they hear a note of healthy thinking, it might touch them, call them to something deeper. It was rightly said that some of our colleagues need to be grounded — they live in bubbles, in their own worlds. Unfortunately, this happens. But this change won’t happen without the laity. What we need is more analysis, without fear of criticism, without anger or humiliation, but a clear naming of problems as they are.
This brings us to an ancient practice of the Church. There was once a time when clergy were elected — not simply appointed by rescript, but when people gathered and said: “We know this person, we want him to be our deacon, priest, or bishop.” And often my fellow clergy forget that, essentially, it is the Church that legitimizes them. The Church elects — and the Church legitimizes. One can call oneself the primate of the Solar Universe, but if the Church doesn’t accept that, then where is it to be realized? So I see a very hopeful and joyful development in the fact that the voice of not only bishops but also priests and laypeople is beginning to be heard.
Because too often, the Church’s position is associated with the statements of high-ranking ecclesiastical officials. But no — when the Body of Christ in its fullness begins to reflect, the laity also have a right to speak and to disagree. Of course, such disagreement should not be rude, but reasoned. That is why assemblies, councils, and synods exist. This is a restoration of conciliarity — to listen to one another, to reduce the degree of authoritarianism that, unfortunately, has entered the Church’s internal relationships. This opens a wide field for discussion, including theological nuance and inter-church interactions.
Therefore, today I rejoice to observe a tendency toward the development of healthy thinking, honest self-awareness, and a lack of fear in acknowledging problems — before others and before ourselves.