Sophiia Brotherhood NGO · Youth for the Future of Ukraine Project
zivik/IFA · Federal Foreign Office of Germany

Introduction

Today, Ukrainian Orthodoxy finds itself in a state of a multi-layered systemic institutional conflict that cannot be reduced to a single cause or a single dimension. Increasingly, scholars describe it as an intertwining of historical, institutional, symbolic, political, and cultural processes that mutually influence and reinforce one another. At the same time, most participants in the conflict tend to explain it through simplified cause-and-effect models, reducing this multidimensional reality to one supposedly decisive factor – canonical, political, historical, or security-related.

As a consequence, the proposed approaches to overcoming the conflict often prove to be equally reductionist, while responsibility for its preservation and perpetuation is frequently assigned primarily to “the other side.” The state, ecclesiastical institutions, civil society, the expert community, as well as various groups within the churches themselves all offer their own explanations for the origins of the crisis. Far less frequently, however, do they engage in critical reflection upon their own role in reproducing it. This asymmetry of responsibility significantly complicates the search for compromise, since change is expected primarily from one’s opponents, whereas the potential for internal transformation remains largely untapped. Moreover, all major actors perceive the conflict as existential. Consequently, any compromise ceases to be regarded as an instrument for achieving the common good and is instead interpreted as a retreat from fundamental principles – or even as a betrayal of one’s own identity that threatens ecclesiastical legitimacy or historical righteousness.

Under such circumstances, the conflict is increasingly sustained not only by objective contradictions but also by an entrenched culture of mutual accusation, a deficit of self-reflection, and a limited willingness to regard one’s own community as part of the problem rather than merely its victim or the sole bearer of the correct solution. This largely explains why even constructive initiatives often encounter deep distrust or are actively obstructed, while the pursuit of the common good gives way to competition among mutually exclusive narratives.

For this reason, the approaches proposed below are based on the understanding that a multi-layered conflict cannot be resolved by means belonging to a single level of intervention. Instead, they offer different yet interconnected directions of transformation, ranging from institutional reforms to the reconsideration of the culture of interaction and ecclesial consciousness itself.

This trajectory may be described as a transition from five interconnected nodes of conflict to five dimensions of a mature ecclesial culture.

1. From Jurisdictional Conflict to a Shared Space of Responsibility

The most widespread approach to overcoming the crisis of Ukrainian Orthodoxy is based on institutional and canonical integration. This approach currently dominates the official policy of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), as well as significant segments of the governmental and expert communities. Its underlying premise is the conviction that the problems of Ukrainian Orthodoxy extend far beyond a purely canonical dispute. Within this framework, it is argued that the long-standing institutional affiliation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) with the Moscow Patriarchate created conditions for the spread of Russian religious and cultural-political influence in Ukraine, while the events following 2014, and especially the full-scale invasion, have further intensified the security dimension of this issue. At the same time, the development of a single Local Orthodox Church on the basis of the 2019 Tomos of Autocephaly is regarded as the foundation of both ecclesiastical and societal stability, whereas the definitive separation of the UOC from the Moscow Patriarchate is understood as a necessary condition for Ukraine’s spiritual security. According to this perspective, once the jurisdictional question has been legally and institutionally resolved, the principal causes of the conflict will gradually lose their relevance.

At the same time, implementing this approach through the incorporation of UOC communities into the OCU – that is, through a change of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction – leaves unresolved the question of how precisely the security problem itself is addressed. Such integration, often carried out under conditions of coercion, presupposes not only the removal of institutional ties with Moscow but also the incorporation into a single ecclesial space of communities that, within the prevailing security discourse, are frequently regarded as potential transmitters of Russian influence. The OCU proceeds from the assumption that a change in canonical jurisdiction will gradually lead to a transformation of the believers’ ecclesial self-identification. Such an understanding, however, effectively reduces identity primarily to institutional affiliation, whereas identity is in fact shaped by a far more complex constellation of factors, including historical memory, religious culture, social relationships, values, practices, and personal experiences of faith.

Analysis of practical experience demonstrates that the possibilities of the integration model have clear limits. Even the complete resolution of canonical and administrative issues does not, by itself, transform people’s patterns of thinking, heal accumulated historical traumas, or eliminate mutual distrust. Nor does it remove the symbolic confrontation in which each side continues to perceive the other as a threat to its own identity. In the absence of deeper cultural transformation, there remains a substantial risk that the old mechanisms of mutual exclusion will simply reproduce themselves under new institutional conditions. On the surface, the conflict appears as a struggle over canonical status, legitimacy, and the jurisdictional organization of Orthodoxy in Ukraine.

For this reason, there is a growing recognition that institutional unity should not be regarded as a prerequisite for cooperation but rather as one possible long-term outcome. A far more important task is the creation of a shared space of responsibility that does not require the immediate unification of ecclesiastical jurisdictions or the abandonment of one’s own canonical position. Such a space presupposes a willingness to share responsibility for the future of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, for the unity of society, for the preservation of human dignity, and for Christian values, even while different ecclesiastical structures continue to exist.

This approach proposes a fundamental shift in the very logic of the movement toward unity: not “first unite, and only then learn to act together,” but rather “first learn to bear responsibility together for the common good, and upon that foundation genuine ecclesial unity may gradually mature.”

This represents a transition from the logic of “Who possesses authority?” to the logic of “For what are we jointly responsible?”

2. From Symbolic Warfare to the Integration of Diverse Experiences

The second level of the conflict is symbolic in nature. In public consciousness, Orthodox jurisdictions are increasingly perceived not as communities of concrete people but as embodiments of particular political, historical, and civilizational projects. For some, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) symbolizes Ukrainian statehood, decolonization, and the definitive break with the Russian imperial past. For others, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) represents historical canonical continuity, while for a significant part of society it has become a symbol of imperial influence and Russian aggression. As a result, real people, local communities, and the diversity of their lived experiences gradually disappear behind generalized symbolic representations.

Under such conditions, dialogue no longer takes place between people but between stigmatized collective images. The interlocutor is no longer perceived as a person with a unique life story but rather as the embodiment of a particular ideology, political position, or historical myth. Every new incident of violence, discrimination, or collaboration is rapidly generalized to the entire community, reinforcing mutual stigmatization and moral polarization. Such a dynamic leaves little room for genuine understanding, since one’s counterpart ceases to be a human being and instead becomes a symbol of what must be defeated or eliminated.

For this reason, increasing importance is being attached to the idea of integrating diverse historical experiences into a common framework of public recognition. This does not imply a mechanical reconciliation of incompatible narratives, nor does it require the moral legitimization of every historical tradition without exception. Clearly, certain elements of ecclesiastical memory are fundamentally incompatible with Ukraine’s contemporary decolonial culture and therefore cannot become part of a shared identity. For example, the veneration of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II as a sacred symbol of the Holy Rus’ or other elements of imperial theology can hardly be integrated into the contemporary tradition of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

At the same time, a substantial portion of human experience – including personal stories of faith, the sacrificial witness of local communities, spiritual ministry, local traditions, memories of repression, loss, and the search for God – is not inherently mutually exclusive. Rather, these experiences can be understood as part of the shared heritage of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

Such an approach presupposes a gradual transition from a struggle between competing symbols to a human-centered understanding of the conflict. In this perspective, the primary object of attention is no longer institutions, historical myths, or political labels, but the concrete human person, together with his or her dignity, freedom, suffering, and lived experience. Dialogue thereby ceases to be a confrontation between mutually exclusive collective images and instead becomes an encounter between people who may possess different historical memories, different ecclesiastical journeys, and different interpretations of the past, yet who remain members of the same society and share responsibility for its future.

In other words, the guiding principle is not: “Your symbols are as legitimate as ours,” but rather: “Your human experience forms part of the history of Ukraine, even if that experience was painful or problematic, while some of the symbols through which it was once interpreted have become unacceptable today.”

3. From an Oppositional Identity to a Dialogical Culture

Despite numerous calls for dialogue, Ukrainian Orthodoxy has yet to develop a stable culture of human-centered communication. The reason lies not only in the absence of negotiating platforms or political will, but much deeper – in the very structure of the conflict itself. Over many years, ecclesiastical confrontation has evolved into a competition of collective identities in which each side increasingly associates its own existence with the preservation of its exclusive claim to truth. Under such conditions, any compromise comes to be perceived not as a means of advancing the common good but as a threat to one’s own identity, a concession of fundamental principles, or even an act of betrayal.

This logic is further reinforced by the phenomenon of oppositional identity. As sociological research demonstrates, such an identity is formed not primarily around a positive understanding of oneself but through continuous opposition to “the other.” A community defines itself by negating its opponent, who gradually becomes an indispensable element of its own self-understanding. Paradoxically, this dynamic makes the conflict self-perpetuating: the more the other is demonized, the clearer the boundaries of one’s own community appear to become. Within such a framework, the disappearance of the “enemy” may itself be experienced as a threat to one’s own sense of identity.

For this reason, contemporary ecclesiastical dialogue often takes the form not of mutual listening but of mutual persuasion, moral condemnation, or public demonstrations of one’s own correctness. Participants frequently speak not with one another but past one another, seeking primarily to reaffirm the validity of their own position before their own audience while simultaneously discrediting that of their opponent. In this format, one’s interlocutor is no longer regarded as a partner in the search for truth but as the bearer of a systemic error who must be convinced, defeated, or discredited. As a result, even constructive discussions easily become a continuation of symbolic conflict by other means.

It is therefore necessary to move from understanding dialogue as merely an instrument to understanding it as a culture. The objective is no longer the rapid achievement of agreements or the persuasion of one’s opponent, but the cultivation of the ability to coexist amid disagreement without undermining the dignity of the other. Such an approach presupposes the development of self-criticism, the rejection of monological thinking, the re-examination of one’s own myths, engagement with collective traumas without sacralizing them, and the cultivation of emotional intelligence together with a culture of mutual listening. One expression of this transformation is the concept of “Open Orthodoxy,” whose central concern is not the struggle for symbolic dominance but the capacity to remain open to the other without losing one’s own identity.

The practical implementation of this approach may include permanent platforms for dialogue: roundtable discussions, inter-church commissions, theological conversations, church–civil society forums, joint educational programs, and local initiatives that bring together representatives of different jurisdictions around concrete societal challenges. Their effectiveness, however, depends less upon the institutional format of such meetings than upon the willingness of their participants to move from the logic of mutual refutation to the logic of a shared search for answers.

In this understanding, dialogue ceases to be merely a mechanism for conflict resolution. It becomes a mode of ecclesial existence – a way of being a community that recognizes that the fullness of truth does not exempt it from the obligation to listen, and that fidelity to one’s own tradition does not exclude respect for the human dignity of those who think differently.

The fullness of truth does not release us from the obligation to listen to the other, and confidence in the correctness of our own position is never sufficient reason to abandon dialogue.

4. From Traumatic Polarization to Ecosystemic Interdependence

Russia’s full-scale invasion has further intensified the wounds that Ukrainian Orthodoxy has been accumulating for decades. For some, the deepest pain has been caused by occupation, the loss of loved ones, the destruction of churches, and the struggle for Ukraine’s independence. For others, it has taken the form of public distrust, accusations of collaboration, the loss of parishes and church buildings, a sense of injustice, and the fear of being identified with anti-constitutional actions that they themselves did not support. Each community has developed its own memory of what it has endured, its own language of suffering, and its own interpretation of what has happened.

The problem arises when one’s own trauma comes to be regarded as the only suffering that truly matters, while the pain of others is dismissed as secondary, inauthentic, or unworthy of compassion. In this way, a kind of competition of victimhood gradually emerges, in which the moral right to speak is determined primarily by the scale of one’s own losses. Under such circumstances, even empathy may come to appear as an act of betrayal toward one’s own community, since acknowledging the suffering of the other is often interpreted as justifying their position or diminishing one’s own tragedy.

For this reason, contemporary approaches increasingly employ an ecosystemic perspective, which proposes viewing Ukrainian Orthodoxy not as a collection of isolated churches but as an integral part of Ukrainian society as a whole. Within this framework, trauma ceases to function as the primary foundation of collective identity and gradually becomes part of the country’s shared historical memory. This does not imply equating different historical experiences or denying responsibility for specific actions. Rather, it involves recognizing that mutual hostility, hatred, and dehumanization ultimately destroy not only individual ecclesiastical communities but also the very social fabric of Ukrainian society.

Ecosystemic thinking proceeds from a simple yet fundamentally important insight: Ukrainian Orthodoxy does not exist independently of Ukraine. It constitutes one element within a broader social ecosystem that includes the state, civil society, culture, education, local communities, and interpersonal relationships. If trust within this ecosystem is destroyed, if the capacity to listen to one another and to cooperate disappears, then ultimately everyone loses, regardless of which ecclesiastical jurisdiction proves institutionally stronger.

Sociological research consistently demonstrates that trust is one of the fundamental mechanisms underlying the functioning of both the state and society. It provides the basis for institutional legitimacy, social cooperation, and civic solidarity. Consequently, the accumulation of mutual distrust between large social groups extends far beyond the boundaries of inter-Orthodox conflict and gradually becomes a matter of national resilience. Religious polarization thus functions as a detonator of society-wide distrust. In this sense, the Orthodox conflict is not merely an ecclesiastical problem but an important component of the broader system of social tensions.

From this follows the idea of ecosystemic pragmatism. It calls for evaluating any proposed solution not only according to its canonical correctness or security-related effectiveness but also according to whether it helps preserve the fundamental supporting structures of Ukrainian society – mutual trust, human dignity, a culture of cooperation, and the capacity to live together once the conflict has ended. For the essential question is not only what Ukrainian Orthodoxy will look like tomorrow, but also what kind of country Ukraine itself will remain after this war.

In other words, this approach proposes a transition from a competition of traumas to ecosystemic interdependence. Acknowledging the suffering of another, however, does not mean accepting that person’s position or endorsing their interpretation of events.

5. From Institutional Distrust to Reflexive Ecclesial Consciousness

One of the deepest reasons for the persistence of the Ukrainian Orthodox conflict is the institutionally entrenched culture of distrust. Over many years, the opposing sides have learned to interpret virtually every action of the other as confirmation of their own worst expectations. Good intentions are explained away as hidden agendas, constructive initiatives are dismissed as tactical maneuvers, and any change is perceived as an attempt to gain a unilateral advantage. In such an atmosphere, trust fails to emerge even when objective grounds for it exist, because the very mode of thinking continually reproduces suspicion.

For this reason, overcoming the crisis requires not only new agreements or institutional reforms but, above all, the development of reflexive ecclesial consciousness. This involves the capacity to view not only one’s opponents but also oneself critically; to acknowledge one’s own mistakes without fearing the loss of identity; and to speak honestly about the difficult chapters of one’s own history without the constant need either to justify them or to shift responsibility entirely onto the other side. Such self-reflection does not weaken the Church; on the contrary, it enhances its moral credibility.

At the same time, reflexivity also entails the ability to assess the actions of one’s opponents proportionately. Actual crimes, instances of collaboration, violations of human rights, and other dangerous phenomena require principled legal, moral, and ecclesiastical evaluation. Yet it is equally dangerous to transfer responsibility from individual persons or groups to an entire ecclesiastical community, treating exceptional cases as defining characteristics of the whole. Under such conditions, the image of the opponent gradually acquires the character of an absolute threat, and all of its actions come to be interpreted exclusively through this predetermined lens.

Such exaggeration of perceived risks has another dangerous consequence. When all attention is focused on the image of the “dangerous other,” society gradually loses its capacity to recognize the real structural problems that give rise to individual crimes or abuses in the first place. Instead of analyzing the institutional mechanisms that made collaboration, corruption, authoritarian practices, or the manipulation of religion possible, there arises the temptation to explain everything simply by the existence of a particular ecclesiastical community. Although such an approach may mobilize society in the short term, it rarely addresses the underlying causes of the problem and does little to prevent their recurrence in the future.

For this reason, reflexive ecclesial consciousness presupposes the development of a culture in which mistakes are not concealed but critically examined; in which criticism begins with oneself; and in which the assessment of others remains honest yet proportionate. It also entails fostering practices of internal self-criticism, transparent evaluation of one’s own decisions, more open communication between clergy and laity, and a gradual departure from an authoritarian model in which acknowledging mistakes is perceived as a sign of weakness.

Ultimately, trust does not arise because one side succeeds in convincing the other of its own flawless integrity. Rather, it emerges when both sides demonstrate the capacity to recognize honestly not only the limitations of the other but also their own. It is precisely this kind of reflexive culture that makes possible the transition from mutual control to shared responsibility, and from the struggle for a monopoly on truth to a common search for truth.

Conclusions

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the crisis of Ukrainian Orthodoxy cannot be adequately explained or resolved within the framework of a single academic discipline, one institutional solution, or one theological approach. It is a multi-layered conflict in which canonical, historical, political, security-related, cultural, and psychological factors are deeply intertwined. Consequently, any attempt to reduce it to a single cause inevitably produces simplified – and ultimately ineffective – models of conflict resolution.

At the same time, an examination of contemporary approaches reveals a common logic of possible transformation. Despite significant differences in their initial assumptions, most constructive proposals are directed not so much toward the victory of one side over another as toward the gradual transformation of the very culture of inter-Orthodox relations. This trajectory may be summarized as a movement:

• from the struggle for institutional structures to shared responsibility;
• from symbolic confrontation to the integration of human experiences;
• from oppositional identity to a dialogical culture;
• from traumatic polarization to ecosystemic interdependence;
• from institutional distrust to reflexive ecclesial consciousness.

Within this perspective, the unifying metanarrative of Ukrainian Orthodoxy does not consist in seeking a new model of domination by one ecclesiastical community over another, nor in mechanically achieving administrative unity. Rather, it is grounded in the formation of a new ecclesial culture whose central values are human dignity, the common good, responsibility, dialogue, self-reflection, and the capacity to see in the other first and foremost a human being rather than a symbol or a threat.

Such an approach neither denies the existence of profound theological, canonical, or security-related disagreements nor proposes that they be ignored. On the contrary, it proceeds from the conviction that genuine unity cannot arise from fear, coercion, deception, or mutual exclusion. It can mature only where there exists a shared willingness to bear responsibility for the future of both Ukrainian Orthodoxy and Ukrainian society, even in the absence of complete agreement on every fundamental issue.

In this sense, unity ceases to be the prerequisite for dialogue and instead becomes one of its possible outcomes. The guiding principle is no longer “first unite, and then learn to act together,” but rather “first learn to bear responsibility together for the common good, and upon that foundation genuine ecclesial unity may gradually mature.”

It is precisely this transition – from a culture of confrontation to a culture of responsible coexistence – that, in our view, can provide the foundation for a unifying metanarrative of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.