On 19 April 2026, as part of the ‘25 Strategic Questions for Ukraine’ project, an article by Myroslav Marynovych entitled ‘What should be the Kyivan Church of the future?’ was published. This is not a standard interview, but a strategic piece written as part of a special project by the Frontier Institute and Ukraïner. According to its vision, Ukrainian intellectuals are called upon to engage in in-depth discussions on a range of challenges facing Ukraine, with a goal to identifying new directions for social development (see https://www.ukrainer.net/thread/25-pytan/).
In his article, Mr Marynovych discusses the future of a ‘Kyivan Church’ in broad sense and devotes considerable attention to the prospects of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (connected to the Moscow Patriarchate). At the same time, he speaks out against radical methods of combating it. One of the striking images in the article is that of a bolt of lightning striking not at random, but specifically a small pillar of flame. In the same way, the Church needs not become the Messiah, but must form a pillar of fire – that is, a powerful spiritual cry to which “Heaven must respond”. The author goes on to outline the desired outcome: “A harmonious and tolerant union [of the various branches of Kyivan Christianity] would be capable of restoring the true identity of Kyivan piety, which would unlock powerful sources of spirituality within the people”.
It is noteworthy that Mr Marynovych acknowledges that the churches of the Kyiv tradition developed under the authority of the three global centres of Christianity: Rome, Constantinople and Moscow. And today, rather than ‘recognising the emergence of distinctive signs of the times’, they are ‘focused on interdenominational conflicts’. The words of Apostle Paul are particularly apt here: “If there is jealousy and strife amongst you, are you not acting like mere mortals?” (1 Cor. 3:3).
Mr Marynovych speaks out against the inertia of denominational thinking: “Ukrainian Christians have always prayed: ‘God, grant us unity!’, but they viewed it as homogeneity. Consequently, the multiplicity of Churches was seen as detrimental to Ukrainian ecclesiastical unity”. In contrast to such homogeneity, the author proposes the concept of “unity in diversity”: “The time has come to recognise all the opportunities offered by the formula ‘unity in diversity’. And to realise that the religious and ecclesiastical identity of the modern Ukrainian nation is still taking shape and that it can only be cumulative and inclusive”.
Mr Marynovych calls for the future Kyivan Church to become a “laboratory” for pan-Christian unity, quoting His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar: “To think of the unity of the Kyivan Church does not mean renouncing the treasure of communion with various Christian centres, but rather enriching the collective spiritual heritage of the Kyivan Church with the fruits of this communion”. A separate theme in Mr Marynovych’s article is how to “liberate the Church from the ‘Russian World’”, since this doctrine is a hybrid political-religious belief. And here he applies the same principle: not to reject, but to draw on the achievements of other centres.
The author emphasises that the “Russian World” is a hybrid political and religious ideology. Most people see it as a danger, considering that both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have lost their status as Churches. But ‘behind the collaborators, we may overlook those who do, after all, sincerely believe in God, expressing their faith through Moscow’s liturgical customs’. It seems impossible to separate such a political and religious belief: “In defending the faith, we ignore political aspects of the ‘Russian World’ ideology and the collaboration of its adherents with the aggressor during the wartime. And by fighting against propaganda and collaboration, we hurt religious feelings and risk infringing on religious freedom”.
To prevent the West from “Ukraine fatigue”, Mr Marynovych proposes a non-stereotypical approach. In particular, he suggests making a clear distinction between ‘cultural preferences and the nature of beliefs’ and ‘the political subordination of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to the interests of the Russian state’. It is precisely the subordination that is dangerous, whereas borrowings from Russian spiritual culture can and should be tolerated, for ‘more than 400 years of cultural exchange cannot be outlawed’.
In general, Mr Marynovych opposes unification as a form of standardisation and calls for a “genuine spiritual transformation”, which is entirely consistent with the image of the spiritual pillar mentioned above. It is important to realise that different principles apply in the religious sphere than in politics; therefore, ‘the imperial nature of the Russian Church can be overcome not so much by the inspired patriotism of the Ukrainian Churches as by their genuine Christianity’.
You can read Myroslav Marynovych’s text (in Ukrainian) via the link https://www.ukrainer.net/kyivska-tserkva/
