On 28–29 September, Lutsk hosted the first part of the Week of Religious Dialogues with Youth as part of the “Youth for the Future of Ukraine” project. And this was one of those occasions when the word “dialogue” was not simply an attractive title for an event, but quite literally a way of working.

The NGO “Sophia Brotherhood”, in partnership with the Volyn Orthodox Theological Academy, held the two-day meeting “Religious Dialogue in the Youth Environment” with financial support from the German Federal Foreign Office. The event was also supported by the Metropolitan Volodymyr Memorial Foundation, the “Academic Initiative” Charitable Foundation, and the National University “Kyiv Aviation Institute.”

First, the Formal Opening. Then Came the Most Interesting Part

The event began on a suitably serious note – exactly as one might expect from a meeting bringing together such a diverse group of participants. The gathering was addressed by Archpriest Volodymyr Vakin, Rector of the Volyn Orthodox Theological Academy; Metropolitan Mykhail of Lutsk and Volyn; Bishop Michael of Comana, Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Ukraine; and Maryna Burdeina, Chair of the Board of the NGO “Sophia Brotherhood.”

Then came what had really made the journey to Lutsk worthwhile – working together. This was not a format where “experts speak and young people listen,” nor was there a division between a podium and an audience, nor an attempt to eloquently repeat things on which everyone already more or less agreed. Instead, participants worked in mixed teams that brought together young people from the OCU and UOC, bishops, priests, theologians, and scholars of religion.

Four Teams. Four Scenarios. And No Chance to Simply Sit It Out

Each of the four teams was given a separate scenario for the future development of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and tasked with exploring it.

But that was only the beginning. The teams then switched scenarios and locations, receiving work that another group had already started. They had to continue it, rethink it, question it, add arguments, and look for points of convergence. As each scenario moved from one team to another, the perspective on it changed as well.

In this kind of format, it is difficult to remain merely a listener: you have to speak, listen, disagree, agree, make arguments, persuade, and propose ideas.

And you also have to work alongside someone with whom, in another context, you might first have needed a great deal of time simply to find common ground.

When a Bishop and a Young Participant Are Simply Members of the Same Team

Perhaps this was one of the event’s most distinctive features.

Bishops, clergy, invited guests, and experts were not a separate “honorary part of the programme.” They were participants in the shared work. The same was true of the young people. Across the four teams, everyone had an equal voice and the same task: not merely to express their own vision, but to think together about what Ukraine’s religious future might look like under different circumstances.

Dialogue does not begin when everyone agrees. It begins when people are willing to sit down at the same table and genuinely start talking. That is precisely why the atmosphere proved far more engaging and productive than yet another “high-level” discussion.

VOTA – Live

A special feature of the first day was “VOTA Live” – a tour and dialogue with Rector Archpriest Volodymyr Vakin. For some of the young participants, it was also their first opportunity to visit a theological seminary and see it not through assumptions, stereotypes, or other people’s accounts, but directly – from the inside.

Here, VOTA became more than simply the venue for the event. The Academy opened its doors to dialogue and warmly welcomed young people with different experiences and from different church backgrounds.

After the Tour – Back to Work

Once the participants had caught their breath after the intensive discussions and teamwork, the scenarios returned to the centre of attention. The teams presented the results of their work, discussed them, and together searched for points of convergence.

And this revealed something essential: the scenarios may differ, experiences may differ, and church environments may differ – yet there is still room for a shared vision. Particularly important was the fact that young people themselves had already begun searching for it – not in theory, but through real conversation with people from different ecclesial and professional backgrounds.

Participants worked in various formats with the following moderators: Tetiana Derkach, analyst and religious affairs commentator; Archpriest Volodymyr Vakin, Rector of VOTA and Candidate of Theology; Hennadii Khrystokin, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences and Professor; Archpriest Serhii Prokopchuk, educator, local historian, and analyst of the religious information sphere; Archpriest Rostyslav Vorobii, Candidate of Theology and lecturer at the Kyiv Orthodox Theological Academy; Deacon Oleksandr Yefremenko; Archpriest Oleksandr Kolb, lecturer at VOTA and Board Member of the NGO “Sophia Brotherhood”; Priest Rostyslav Khrupchyk, Board Member of the NGO “Sophia Brotherhood”; Archpriest Heorhii Khodun, lecturer at VOTA; and Maryna Burdeina, Chair of the Board of the NGO “Sophia Brotherhood.”

Not Only About the Church, but Also About the Skills Without Which Dialogue Cannot Work

The participants then turned to something without which no vision of the future can work in practice.

Tetiana Derkach, analyst and religious affairs commentator, addressed the hierarchy of hard, soft, and self skills and posed a very practical question: why does the Church need these skills?

Lena Shtorm, crisis psychologist and dialogue facilitator, spoke about two dimensions of the institutional design of church environments and the Christian mission in the world.

“We cannot instantly forget years of grievances or heal canonical wounds. But as Christians, we are responsible for the spirit we bring into a wounded country. Our dialogue does not have to be immediate or perfect, but it must be honest. Because the mission of the Church in Ukraine during the war is not to protect institutional interests, but to protect the image of God in every Ukrainian person.”

The second day continued along the same lines. The young participants once again worked in teams, this time focusing on the skills needed to build effective cooperation and interaction.

Together with Nataliia Rainysh, Head of the NGO “Eleos Volyn,” participants explored the practical question, “How Can We Reach Agreement Rather Than Win?” – working on teamwork and conflict situations.

Lena Shtorm introduced another practical dimension: new skills for building the common good and interconfessional cooperation as a path towards greater mutual understanding.

This was the underlying logic of the event: dialogue was not discussed – it was practised. Cooperation was not declared – it was put into action. Common ground was sought not in theory, but through real interaction. One can talk endlessly about the need for dialogue. But without the ability to listen, reach agreements, work through conflict, and engage with an uncomfortable opposing view, even the best intentions will not always lead to genuine understanding.

Workshops and creative movement practices were also an important part of the programme. Participants took part in a wide range of activities that allowed them to move between intellectual work, creativity, physical activity, and collective action. These included the “Web of Resources” practice; the “30-Day Timeline” crisis-management and project-planning exercise; the art-therapy practice “Collective Poem – Manifesto for Reconstruction,” during which teams composed their own four-line poems; and other formats. These activities helped participants get to know one another beyond their usual roles, recognise the strengths of their teams, and create another space for connection, trust, and joint action.

Dialogue Does Not Happen by Itself

The two-day meeting concluded with a tour of Lutsk’s landmarks. Young people from different church backgrounds did not meet to prove to one another who was right. They met to try to think together about the future. That, ultimately, was the point of the format.

When people have been accustomed for years to talking about one another, the moment when they finally begin talking to one another becomes extraordinarily important.

And sometimes all it takes is four teams, several different scenarios, a new setting, and a willingness not to walk away from dialogue at the first uncomfortable remark.

To be continued.

The project “Youth for the Future of Ukraine: Dialogue, Research and Creative Media Work for the Consolidation of Ukrainian Society and Orthodoxy” is implemented by the NGO “Sophia Brotherhood” with the support of the German Government / zivik / ifa.