This presentation was delivered on April 29, 2025, during the Round Table “Contemporary Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Debunking Myths for the Sake of Reconciliation and Social Consolidation in Ukraine,” organized by the “Sofiyske Brotherhood” with the support of the Renovabis Foundation. The Sofiyske Brotherhood may not necessarily share the views of the speakers; likewise, individual opinions expressed within the project may not reflect the consolidated position of the Brotherhood.
Hennadii Khrystokin, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor at the State University “Kyiv Aviation Institute”
Today, I would like to focus on my role as a scholar of religion, a layperson, and an expert, and reflect on the question: what exactly is hindering religious dialogue in Ukraine?
Over the past 30 years of Orthodoxy’s existence in independent Ukraine, many mutual grievances, conflicts, and destructive myths have accumulated among Orthodox believers. These hinder not only peaceful coexistence among churches but also deepen conflict within Ukrainian society.
The main destructive myths of the UOC about the OCU include: the OCU is “uncanonical” and “graceless”; the OCU is a political project inspired by the Ukrainian state; union with the OCU equals “betrayal” and “capitulation.” The myths produced within the OCU include: the UOC remains pro-Russian and loyal to the “Russian World”; UOC’s statements about independence from Moscow are insincere; the UOC actively obstructs the unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. All these and many other statements and mutual accusations can be classified as myths because they represent distortions of mutual perception — cognitive biases and prejudices rooted in projecting one’s own position onto the other, in inflated expectations, and in an unwillingness to understand the inner motivations and interests of the opponent.
What makes these myths destructive? These jurisdictional myths are destructive because they depict reality one-sidedly — from the perspective of a single jurisdiction, ignoring Ukraine’s complex historical past and the multifaceted nature of today’s religious landscape. They are myths because they overwhelmingly reflect the narrative of one side while rejecting that of the other. In reality, both jurisdictions (and yes, they are two jurisdictions within the one Church of Christ) have become fixated on their own narratives, blinding themselves to the broader reality and leaving no room for the other. This unwillingness to see and accept the other breeds destructive mythology. For a more detailed analysis, see: https://www.religion.in.ua/main/51742-narativ-i-realnist-analiz-prirodi-religijnogo-mifu.html
Our task is to see a more complex reality. We must take a step back from these myths. We need to understand when myths can be constructive — and when they become destructive. A sober and calm view of the situation reveals that, over the past 30 years, the Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine have each created two opposing sets of myths, built as polar opposites. Their mutual perceptions are shaped by opposition, like repelling forces. This makes dialogue impossible. At present, the jurisdictions are speaking in different theological and political languages. Our task as experts and scholars is to rise above the situation, to a meta-level of understanding.
To move to that meta-level means not to dwell on destructive language but rather to focus on forming constructive meta-narratives that can aid the unification of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. So what unifying principles could bring Ukrainian Orthodoxy together?
Principles of Unity in Ukrainian Orthodoxy
Ivan Ohienko once said that two things can and should unite Ukrainians: God and Ukraine. That’s a solid foundation. Indeed, Christ is the central axis of unity for all Christians — a truth every believer can affirm. He is the center around which Christian unity is possible. Another pole of unity is the legal Ukrainian state. This is a crucial axis of unity not only for Christians but for all Ukrainian citizens who seek peace, security, and stable development. A legal state is meant to ensure safety and protect freedoms. And there is a third, no less important center of unity: civil society — the part of society that monitors state power and upholds human rights and freedom of conscience. It is through the values of civil society — freedom, pluralism, responsibility, subsidiarity — that real unity among Ukrainians and within Ukrainian Orthodoxy becomes possible.
Why are all three principles necessary? Declaring only one principle — Christ — is, unfortunately, not enough to unite Christians. Likewise, proclaiming the priority of Christ and the state has not prevented the rise of imperial ideologies, nationalisms, and religious fanaticisms. In contrast, the development of civil society committed to the rule of law and human rights is essential for both civic and religious unity. Only when the Church, the state, and society become value-centered pillars, can true conditions for Orthodox unity be formed. Everything else — politics, church canons — is important, but must be reconsidered and reframed through the interests of Christ, the Church, the legal state, and civil society.
These are the external conditions for unity. But there is also a crucial internal condition for peaceful coexistence within Ukrainian Orthodoxy: the Church must constantly strive to be true to itself. The Church must not place its corporate interests above its service to others. The Church exists to serve God, the people, and society. It must not serve its own idols or myths. It must serve Ukraine, serve society, serve the people, serve the neighbor, serve God — that is its primary mission. Both jurisdictions must focus on this inner foundation of social service. It is of utmost importance.
What really hinders unity? The most fundamental issue: in the Ukrainian Church, as in global Orthodoxy, there is a divide between bishops, clergy, and laity. It’s as though three castes live in separate worlds. This is a serious problem. Right now, decision-making is concentrated in the hands of the episcopate, which remains silent or passive — and most priests and laity also remain passive and silent. A lack of social engagement, fear of change, and resistance to transformation are chronic features of Orthodoxy. Everyone waits for external change: that the opponent will change, that the state will intervene, that laws will be enforced — and everything will fix itself. Friends, nothing will “fix itself.” There will be no change in the Church until we ourselves — and small communities — change from within. That’s why gatherings like this one are so important: any format of action — publishing, volunteering, social service, interreligious dialogue, direct engagement — is crucial. Laity must become the initiators of change in the Church and in society.
All this reveals another key feature of today’s Orthodox landscape: the conflict between open and closed Orthodoxy. On the one hand, both jurisdictions show a tendency to close themselves off from the world and from change. On the other hand, within each jurisdiction, there is an inclusive tendency toward openness. The problem is that exclusivist, closed tendencies now dominate both jurisdictions. They are closed to change — and closed to each other. Two closed systems cannot come closer; they only move further apart.
In conclusion, I would say: the future of Ukrainian Orthodoxy lies in becoming aware of and overcoming destructive myths, in reaching the meta-level that can unite us. The external foundations of this meta-level are Christ, civil society, and the rule of law. The internal foundations are the Church’s own nature: service to people, overcoming the divide between hierarchy and laity, and fostering an open Orthodoxy. The Church must return to itself — to its nature and vocation. That is what can truly unite us — and bring peace both to the Church and to Ukraine.