Lived Theology and Leadership in Wartime Ukraine: An Empirical Study of How Lament, Presence, and Hope Reflect and Shape Theological Meaning-Making (2022–2025)

Abstract

Based on leadership narratives collected between 2022 and 2025, this article examines how Ukrainian non-military organizational and community leaders who have remained in the country during the ongoing war interpret, embody, and enact theological meaning within their lived leadership experience. Drawing on two qualitative datasets—one collected in 2022 (n = 145) and a second in 2025 (n = 79)—the study employs a lived theology approach together with a reflexive thematic analysis to explore how theological meaning emerges organically as stated in leaders’ accounts of suffering, responsibility, presence, and hope. The findings indicate that participants articulated three overarching movements of lived theology: lament, leading to dependence on God; the sensed presence of God, leading to social solidarity and shared responsibility; and hope in God, orienting leaders toward post-war restoration. These movements function not as abstract or institutionally authorized doctrines, but as dynamic theological orientations generated through lived theological reflection as leaders connect their perceptions of God with the realities of wartime life. The study contributes to practical theology by demonstrating how theological reflection arises from concrete leadership practices under conditions of war. It further advances leadership studies by showing how theological sense-making, suffering, and responsibility converge in the lives of ordinary people—leaders and followers alike—forming a shared spiritual orientation that sustains communal life amid war and nurtures hope for post-war renewal.

1. Introduction

The Russo-Ukrainian war began with Russia’s seizure and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. A dramatic turn for the worse occurred in February 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale military invasion, transforming a regional battle into nationwide aggression marked by widespread destruction, mass displacement, and loss of life. Scholars widely interpret this aggression as rooted in competing historical narratives about the Russian-Ukrainian relationship, particularly Russia’s punitive geopolitical logic toward Ukraine’s westward orientation (Snyder 2015; Plokhy 2008, 2012, 2023; Kuzio 2019, 2022; Hrytsak 2021). Under President Putin, Russian narratives have been amplified through propaganda, portraying Ukraine as a bogus state manipulated by Western power. This propaganda has been reinforced by religious-ideological constructs—most notably the doctrine of the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir)—which sacralise imperial ambition and distort theological language to legitimise violence (Kofman et al. 2017; Plokhy 2023; Roozenbeek 2024; Denysenko 2023; Hovorun 2022, 2023; Shishkov 2023; Goodin 2024; Stanciu 2023; Stoyanov 2024; Elsner 2025).

The war’s social, psychological, and political consequences have attracted sustained interdisciplinary attention (Nielsen 2025; Shumylovych and Zolkos 2024). Research highlights widespread mental health challenges; yet alongside those challenges exist resilience, social support, and other coping mechanisms, particularly among displaced populations (Fedorchak 2024; Irkhin et al. 2024; Urbański et al. 2024). Within Ukrainian religious studies, scholars have documented shifting church-state relations and the expanding public role that religious organisations are now playing in humanitarian, pastoral, and civic engagement. A theological shift toward holistic missional models emphasising compassion, solidarity, social responsibility, and prophetic witness amid suffering has also drawn scholarly attention (Yakymenko et al. 2024; Soloviy 2024). International leadership scholarship has likewise examined how wartime conditions have reshaped Ukrainian leadership, organisational life, and moral decision-making, as well as the leadership attributes required during and beyond the war (Ilyas 2023; Williams 2023; Zelenin 2023; Negrov and Riggio 2025; Shevtsova et al. 2025). Despite these advances, limited attention has been given to how theological meaning has been formed and enacted through leadership practices within conditions of sustained violence and uncertainty.

This article addresses that gap by examining how Ukrainians who have remained in the country during the war interpret, embody, and enact theological meaning through their particular leadership practices. Drawing on qualitative data collected in 2022 and 2025, it explores leadership as a site of lived theology, where lament, presence, and hope are not only interpreted but enacted through concrete practices of responsibility and solidarity. By linking lived theology with wartime leadership, the study contributes to practical theology, leadership studies, and broader scholarship on religion, resilience, and war.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Conceptualization and Hermeneutics of Lived Theology

In religious studies, the notion of lived religion refers to “religion-as-practiced in the context of everyday lives” (McGuire 2008, p. 213). The concept encompasses a broad spectrum of religious phenomena—rituals, beliefs, values, symbols, institutions—as they are interpreted and enacted by those who might commonly be referred to as ordinary people (Knibbe and Kupari 2020, p. 167). It involves striking a balance between, on the one hand, focusing upon formal and officially endorsed religious tenets and, on the other hand, looking to sources and insights emerging from everyday life (Ammerman 2007a, 2007b, 2013, 2016).

While lived religion broadly describes and interprets religious practice, lived theology, for its part, focuses more explicitly on its theological content. As one scholar defines the term, “Lived Theology is the scholarly attempt to bracket and study theology and theologizing shaped by ordinary people’s experiences in everyday life” (Tveitereid 2023, p. 67). Within a Christian context, lived theology becomes particularly evident when the doctrinal knowledge of trained theologians encounters the embodied faith of those without formal theological education (Müller 2021). Described in this manner, lived theology highlights a dialogical process in which the church’s faith is interpreted, enriched, and at times challenged through the voices and practices of its members. It also turns out to be an engaging form of scholarship, for not only does it describe religious practices but also contributes to their development. It aligns in this sense with action-research traditions that pursue the transformation of lived practices while remaining attentive to the presence and workings of God within those practices (cf. Ganzevoort and Roeland 2014; Lee 2025).

Laiho (2023) conceptualizes lived theology as a dynamic and experiential process wherein individuals interpret life through faith and faith through life. She argues that theologising begins in experience, particularly in the “gap or wound” where personal convictions and inherited traditions come into tension (pp. 5, 9, 20). Based on empirical work with fourteen young adults, she identifies three interrelated modes of theologising: cognitive (negotiating religious language and forming meaningful concepts), affective (articulating the emotional and embodied dimensions of faith), and practical (expressing faith through action, ethical behaviour, and communal participation). Together, these three constitute holistic theologising—a dynamic interplay of thinking, feeling, and acting through which lived experience and religious tradition mutually shape one another (pp. 19–22).

Proposing his own threefold hermeneutical framework for studying lived theology, Ganzevoort (2022) argues that researchers must attend to (a) the interpretation of sacred sources and articulated theological teachings, and (b) the lived or operant dimensions of faith—what people do and what they believe in light of their firsthand experience of life. These lived convictions and actions of believers form voices that can then be placed into constructive dialogue with the normative voices of Scripture and formal theological tradition.

Methodologically, scholars develop their concepts of lived theology and shape the language in which they define those concepts by drawing upon diverse qualitative approaches—including grounded theory, ethnography, participatory action research, and qualitative content analysis (Müller 2024; Astley 2002; Astley and Francis 2013). Further to employing qualitative and inductive methods, Müller (2024), for example, maintains that the study of lived theology necessitates critical reflection on the researcher’s own positionality.

2.2. Lived Theology and the Theological Foundations of Leadership

Lived theology integrates empirical inquiry with theological interpretation. It assumes that faith practices are shaped by God’s initiative and are best understood through theological concepts such as grace, vocation, love, and the work of the Spirit. Theology does not emerge subsequent to empirical analysis; it precedes investigation and thus shapes how researchers observe, listen, and discern meaning within lived faith. Ordinary practices like prayer, preaching, singing, blessing, and acts of service are understood not merely as human actions but as moments in which God speaks, forms, and transforms (cf. Immink 2005).

In the scholarly literature, leadership has been defined in diverse ways, with no single consensus. Gill (2011) characterizes leadership as “showing the way and helping or inducing others to pursue it” (p. 9), and identifies six core leadership themes and practices: mission, vision, values, strategy, empowerment, and engagement (pp. 108–286). Within Christian theology, leadership is understood in diverse ways but is consistently grounded in transcendence, spiritual formation, alignment with the will of God, and self-transcendent service (Langer 2014; Negrov 2025). Theologically attuned leadership is described as Christocentric, follower-oriented, and shaped by theocentric convictions (Bekker 2009; Tangen 2018; Sloan 2011; Ayers 2006). As taught within Christian traditions, God forms leaders and followers for joint actions, characterized by trust, wisdom, courage, humility, compassion, integrity, and perseverance—virtues revealed in Christ and cultivated through studying Scripture, following the Holy Spirit, and participating in the community of faith (Negrov 2025). Leadership, truly oriented toward God’s mission, the calling of the Church, and service to society will be transparent, relational, and authentic (Winston 2021).

Anacker and Shoup (2014, p. 61) highlight again what might be considered to be the essential theological elements of Christian leadership: following Christ, being filled with the Spirit, discerning vocation, stewarding gifts, engaging in prayer and fellowship, belonging to the Church, and integrating Scripture with general and special revelation. At the center of these disciplines stands love (agapē), the defining virtue of leadership. Love—understood not as sentiment but as a life-shaping orientation—resists self-centeredness and seeks the good of others (Gill and Negrov 2021). From such an orientation emerge humility, courage, patience, forgiveness, and integrity—virtues that guide the mutual influence between leader and follower within any given team or organization.

2.3. Theology and Leadership in Wartime Ukraine

As Wigg-Stevenson (2014) argues, theology is inherently contextual, emerging from concrete practices, communal life, and sociopolitical realities rather than existing as an abstract neutrality. Leadership likewise takes shape within cultural narratives, challenges, and organizational settings; both theology and leadership are embodied responses to the pressures and possibilities of lived experience.

Since 2014—and especially following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022—Ukrainian Christians have been forced to engage in theological sense-making while deeply intertwined with the realities of war. One organizational leader, a non-profit vice-president and lay preacher, noted in private conversation that both his leadership decisions and sermons have been forged within the wartime conditions shared by all Ukrainians. Similarly, Ukrainian Baptist theologian and seminary president Oleksandr Geychenko observed in the early days following the invasion that unprecedented dangers were provoking deep emotional and spiritual upheaval. Believers, he stated, were being prompted to reconsider their faith practices and to seek language adequate to express their suffering and anger (Geychenko 2022, p. 9). Researchers also indicate that during the war, many Ukrainians have expressed a renewed sense of God’s presence amid suffering, captured in the affirmation that “when we are with God, God is with us” (Mierienkov 2025). The atrocities of the war have thus given rise to what Pavlenko (2024) describes as a “theology after Bucha,” that is, a theology comparable to post-Holocaust theology which reconsiders divine justice, mercy, and love and calls for repentance, responsibility, and the rejection of pre-war ecclesial formalism. Not surprisingly, Biblical themes have likewise gained renewed significance within Ukraine. Scripture has been interpreted as a framework for trusting in divine accountability for injustice and for enduring war as a trial oriented toward spiritual renewal (Ustinovich 2023). It is within this context—the context of the hard realities of war—that scholars have begun examining how the war has reshaped Ukrainian leadership and theological reflection (Negrov and Riggio 2025; Soloviy 2024).

Although international scholarship on lived religion and lived theology has grown, little attention has been given to how lived theology emerges specifically through leadership practices under wartime conditions. Wartime Ukraine presents a telling context for such inquiry, as displacement, danger, and moral rupture prompt grassroots theological reflections on God, justice, vocation, and hope—expressed through prayer, pastoral care, mutual aid, and biblical imagination. These reflections form a body of theological meaning-making that both enriches and complicates formal theological discourse. While Ukrainian theologians have written on suffering, trauma, and ecclesial responsibility, for the most part their work spans no further than the limits of formal or public theology. To date, in contrast, no empirical study has emerged examining how lived theology has been expressed through the leadership perceptions and practices of non-military leaders during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.

3. Methodology

This study draws on two qualitative datasets, one collected in 2022, the other in 2025, with both employing the same four open-ended questions. Respondents were asked to give their perceptions on how leadership was being exercised within Ukraine amid the war experience. The 2022 dataset (n = 145) was collected during the early months after the Russian invasion of February 2022, while the 2025 dataset (n = 79) was gathered between June and October of 2025, the third year of the war. Both phases relied on convenience and snowball sampling. The datasets were treated as independent, yet complementary sources for analysis. As mentioned, participants in both phases responded to the same set of questions:

• What does leadership mean to you in the context of the war in Ukraine?
• As a leader, what are you doing during the war? In what ways are you showing leadership?
• How are other Ukrainians you know demonstrating leadership?
• What kind of leadership will Ukrainians need after the war?

Although the questions focused on the meaning, practice, and post-war expectations of leadership, in their responses, participants frequently referenced faith, prayer, Scripture, and theological interpretation as integral components to the leadership they observed around them. The expressions of lived theology thus emerged organically within the data, revealing how Ukrainian leaders had integrated spiritual meaning-making into their leadership practices under wartime conditions.

These studies did not classify participants by religious affiliation; however, several respondents did voluntarily disclose their faith tradition, while others, through the narratives embedded within their responses, indicated active religious involvement of one kind or another. A small number identified as Orthodox, Greek Catholic, or Roman Catholic, while the majority of those who self-identified—whether in interviews or written responses—were Evangelicals from Baptist, Pentecostal, or non-denominational churches.

3.1. Participants

The 2022 dataset was collected between late March and early May, during the early months of the Russian invasion. A total of 145 Ukrainian organizational leaders participated: 28 were interviewed face-to-face or by phone or Zoom, and 117 were surveyed via an anonymous SurveyMonkey questionnaire, which facilitated asynchronous and secure participation under the wartime conditions. Respondents included 80 men and 65 women, ages 20–59 (M ≈ 35), the majority of whom were largely well educated (79% held a college or graduate degree). Participants represented a wide spectrum of society—religious organizations (34%), businesses (29%), nonprofits (23%), public/government roles (10%), as well as a small number of homemakers and students (4%). They resided across all major regions of Ukraine: 36% in the West, 23% in the Center, 20% in the North, 11% in the East, and 10% in the South, with several internally displaced persons (IDPs) among those located in western regions. Given the severe mobility restraints and all-round instability present within that time period, convenience and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants.

The 2025 dataset included 79 Ukrainian adults who participated between 5 June and 19 November 2025. About 15% were interviewed via Zoom or telephone, while the rest were asked to complete an online open-ended questionnaire. All were living and/or working in Ukraine during the Russian incursion. Represented within the sampling were a wide range of non-military organizational leaders active in church, nonprofit, educational, business, healthcare, research, public-sector, and community settings. Their leadership roles spanned pastoral ministry, chaplaincy, discipleship, youth and children’s work, humanitarian outreach, education, municipal leadership, entrepreneurship, health and psychosocial services, and youth development initiatives such as Christian football clubs. Women comprised 63.6% of the sample (n = 50) and men 36.4% (n = 29), together consisting mostly of young and middle-aged adults (30% aged 20–29; 43% aged 30–39; 19.5% aged 40–49; 7.8% aged 50–60). Educational levels were high: 78.7% held university degrees, with the remainder reporting having completed either technical or secondary education. Respondents lived in all major regions of the country—24.6% in the West, 27.9% in the Center, 32.8% in the East, 8.2% in the North, and 6.6% in the South. Several internally displaced persons were also represented among the respondents.

In both datasets, leadership responsibilities varied: most supervised 1–10 people, and a smaller group managed more than twenty. Indirectly exercised leadership extended further, with roughly 20% overseeing networks of more than 1000 individuals, including organizational or civic structures reaching as high as 14,000–18,000 people. Such a widely spread diversity provided a rich context for examining how lived theology is expressed across organizations differing in size—in some instances, vastly differing.

Participants’ narratives collected were predominantly in the Ukrainian language, with a very small number of responses submitted in Russian (within the 2022 dataset). For purposes of clarity and readability, all excerpts cited within this article are presented in English translation. All non-English material has been translated by the author using a meaning-preserving approach, with careful attention paid to participants’ voice, emotional tone, and theological nuance.

3.2. Coding and Analysis

The 2022 dataset had been previously analysed by two independent coders for a separate study on leadership perceptions; however, that analysis did not address theological themes. For the present study, the author re-examined the relevant material and conducted a new interpretive reading focused on lived theology. The 2025 dataset, part of an ongoing research project, was coded by the author using reflexive thematic analysis. While this phase of analysis was conducted by a single researcher, analytic rigor was strengthened through systematic memo writing, maintenance of a detailed audit trail, and peer debriefing with methodological colleagues. Treating the two datasets as independent yet complementary enabled a more textured interpretation of theological meaning-making across different phases of the war.

Reflexive thematic analysis was chosen for its flexibility and interpretive depth. As Braun and Clarke (2006, 2019) emphasize, this approach positions the researcher as an active meaning-maker and is therefore well suited to identifying spiritual and theological motifs that emerge organically from leadership narratives not explicitly designed to elicit them. Its emphasis on reflexivity, contextual sensitivity, and conceptual clarity provides a coherent framework for analysing how lived theology becomes embedded in leaders’ wartime accounts.

3.3. Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity

My positionality is shaped by academic training in theology and leadership studies and by sustained engagement with Ukraine during the full course of the war to date. Since February 2022 I have travelled to Ukraine more than ten times, teaching and conducting workshops for pastors, chaplains, youth ministers, educators, and other Christian workers. These visits—including to cities near active war zones—have involved direct conversations with theologians and ministry leaders who daily shoulder spiritual and pastoral responsibilities amid uncertainty, trauma, and appalling loss. Such an array of direct and extensive contacts positions me well not only as a researcher but also as a witness to the lived theologies Ukrainian Christians have been constructing in real time.

Ventures into some of the more dangerous areas of Ukraine have awarded me access to leaders who otherwise would be difficult to reach during the war; they have also shaped the 2025 sample by facilitating snowball recruitment within organizations and ministry networks already somewhat familiar with my work. Following Müller’s call for “the interpretation of our own interpretation” (Müller 2024, pp. 6–7), I acknowledge that my dual identity as scholar and practitioner informs both data generation and interpretation. My goal is not neutrality but transparent, responsible engagement that allows participants’ lived experiences to emerge clearly while recognizing my own personal relation to the context through which their theological meaning-making becomes discernible.

3.4. Ethical Considerations

Over the course of conducting the two research projects serving as the basis for this present study, careful attention was paid to observing standard ethical protocols for doing qualitative research. Protocols followed included voluntary participation, informed consent, and assured anonymity and confidentiality for all participants. Due to the ongoing war, special care was taken to avoid risk: identifiable details were removed from submissions, interviews were arranged around participants’ safety needs, and anonymous responses were permitted for the online questionnaire. The absence of independent coders for the second dataset admittedly limited inter-coder validation; however, the reflexive thematic analysis employed—supported by memoing and peer debriefing—helped mitigate this absence.

In Section 5 later in this article participants are identified, when cited or referred to, using anonymized codes indicating the dataset and respondent number. “D22” refers to narratives collected in 2022 (n = 145), and “D25” refers to narratives collected in 2025 (n = 79). Each dataset tag is then followed by a sequential participant identifier. The system preserves participant anonymity.

4. Results

Although the four research questions in the study did not explicitly solicit theological reflections, a notable number of participants framed their understanding of leadership through religious language, spiritual practices, and theological interpretation. Following the methodological principles employed by other researchers (Miller-McLemore 2022; Marsh et al. 2016; Müller 2023; Laiho 2023), such expressions have been treated as forms of everyday theologizing, that is, as ways in which individuals draw upon their faith to interpret lived experience and to articulate modes of thinking and behaving embodied and expressed within the concrete realities of wartime life.

Table 1. Frequency of Explicitly Religious Information in Leadership Narratives (2022 and 2025).

Survey Question	2022 (n = 145)	%	2025 (n = 79)	%
Question 1: What does leadership mean to you in the context of the war in Ukraine?	18	12%	44	56%
Question 2: As a leader, what are you doing during wartime? In what ways are you showing leadership during the war?	29	20%	52	66%
Question 3: How are other Ukrainians whom you know showing their leadership?	16	11%	53	67%
Question 4: What kind of leadership will Ukrainians need after the war?	12	8%	54	68%

summarizes percentages of respondents who incorporated explicitly religious or spiritual language—such as references to faith, prayer, Scripture, theological convictions, or forms of ecclesial ministry—into their answers across the four open-ended questions. The overarching code for the results—“Religious Information”—has been applied identically to the 2022 and 2025 datasets, allowing for direct comparison between the two years.

Our study began in 2022, with the analysis of the 2022 dataset being completed that same year. During this initial phase, the material coded as “Religious Information” was further organized into a set of sub-codes—Prayerful Leadership, Public Witness (Verbal and Non-verbal Invitation to Faith), Diaconal Service (Practical Assistance and Action), Reliance on God/Trust in God, Sense of Divine Calling, Trauma-Responsive Ministry (Care for Souls), Incarnational Presence and Solidarity, the Church as a Spiritual-Formation Community, and Post-war Renewal and Reconciliation. These sub-codes were developed to capture the nuanced ways in which respondents articulated religious meaning and practice. The same coding system was applied to the 2025 dataset to ensure analytical consistency and comparability across both phases of the study.

Table 2. Comparative Coding Results from the Two Phases of Research (2022 and 2025).

Thematic Codes	2022 (n = 145)				2025 (n = 79)
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Prayerful Leadership	6 (4.1%)	10 (6.9%)	9 (6.2%)	1 (0.7%)	7 (8.9%)	5 (6.3%)	15 (19.0%)	10 (12.7%)
Public Witness (Verbal & Non-verbal Invitation to Faith)	8 (5.5%)	8 (5.5%)	5 (3.4%)	5 (3.4%)	7 (8.9%)	10 (12.7%)	12 (15.2%)	9 (11.4%)
Diaconal Service (Practical Assistance and Action)	10 (6.9%)	5 (3.4%)	5 (3.4%)	0 (0%)	20 (25.3%)	26 (32.9%)	45 (57.0%)	33 (41.8%)
Reliance on God/Trust in God	3 (2.1%)	1 (0.7%)	1 (0.7%)	2 (1.4%)	10 (12.7%)	4 (5.1%)	10 (12.7%)	10 (12.7%)
Sense of Divine Calling	4 (2.8%)	2 (1.4%)	1 (0.7%)	0 (0%)	6 (7.6%)	2 (2.5%)	5 (6.3%)	7 (8.9%)
Trauma-Responsive Ministry (Care for Souls)	0 (0%)	4 (2.8%)	0 (0%)	7 (4.8%)	4 (5.1%)	19 (24.1%)	20 (25.3%)	45 (57.0%)
Incarnational Presence and Solidarity	2 (1.4%)	2 (1.4%)	2 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	9 (11.4%)	26 (32.9%)	35 (44.3%)	23 (29.1%)
Church as Spiritual-Formation Community	2 (1.4%)	5 (3.4%)	3 (2.1%)	3 (2.1%)	4 (5.1%)	46 (58.2%)	25 (31.6%)	23 (29.1%)
Post-war Spiritual Renewal and Reconciliation	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (4.8%)	3 (3.8%)	0 (0%)	3 (3.8%)	27 (34.2%)

Coding frequencies for theological themes across four guiding interview questions in 2022 (n = 145) and 2025 (n = 79). Q1–Q4 correspond to the four core research questions: (1) What does leadership mean to you in the context of the war in Ukraine? (2) As a leader, what are you doing during the war? In what ways are you showing leadership? (3) How are other Ukrainians you know demonstrating leadership? (4) What kind of leadership will Ukrainians need after the war?

summarizes the frequency of theological themes arising from responses to the four leadership questions asked in the 2022 and 2025 datasets.

The coded distributions reveal, moving from the earlier to the latter dataset, a marked increase in theological and spiritual emphasis as the war progressed. In 2022, explicitly theological references appeared only modestly and unevenly across the four questions, with prayer, public witness, and diaconal service being the most frequent expressions of lived faith. By 2025, however, theological motifs increased dramatically in both frequency and depth. Diaconal service, incarnational presence, and trauma-responsive ministry emerged as dominant themes, reflecting a heightened orientation toward embodied care, relational solidarity, and pastoral accompaniment amid prolonged suffering. The expansion of trauma-responsive ministry—from negligible mention in 2022 to more than half of all Q4 responses in 2025—signals a significant reorientation of spiritual leadership priorities toward healing and presence. Likewise, the increase in references to the church as a spiritual-formation community and to post-war as a time for reconciliation indicate a theological outlook that now integrated present trauma with future hope.

The contrast in frequency is striking: whereas only 8–20% of respondents in 2022 referenced theological or spiritual content, 56–68% did so in 2025. Participants in the latter dataset more frequently invoked prayer, trust in God, Scripture-based discernment, ecclesial service, and theological reflections on suffering and responsibility. These shifts suggest that ongoing wartime conditions had deepened the theological framing of leadership, particularly within Christian-influenced environments. Early-war responses centred mainly on civic and organizational responsibilities, but by 2025 leadership was increasingly being described as a theologically grounded vocation shaped by biblical imagination, pastoral concern, and a heightened sense of divine calling. As the percentage numbers clearly show, lived theology for wartime Ukrainians had significantly reshaped their perceptions and understandings of leadership and its role in the collective struggle to survive.

At the same time, the stronger theological orientation of the 2025 narratives should not be interpreted as a population-level surge in religiosity or a growing maturity in theologizing. In all likelihood, the stronger orientation is more attributable to the sampling dynamics at play within the protracted conflict; church-based networks, humanitarian volunteers, and Christian leaders remained among the most accessible and communicatively active groups during the third year of the war. Consequently, the 2025 findings are best understood as emerging from Christian-influenced leadership contexts, a factor that helps explain the pronounced theological content of the later dataset.

The analysis demonstrates that the nine theological–practical codes generated from the 2022 dataset remain strongly represented in 2025. Yet their expression has evolved. Several themes now appear in richer and more complex or detailed forms, shaped by prolonged exposure to war, accumulated trauma, expanded ministry responsibilities, and the deepening of theological reflections in wartime. For example, Trauma-Responsive Ministry now encompasses not only care for “souls” but also explicit attention to PTSD, family systems, grief, moral injury, and intergenerational effects. Incarnational Presence is no longer merely “being with people” but is framed as the ethical decision to remain in Ukraine—and having refused flight, to embody solidarity with those under danger. Likewise, the theme of Spiritual-Formation Community now includes dimensions of how to retain stability, belonging, routine, and continuity under chronic stress. Post-war Renewal and Reconciliation has also expanded: respondents integrate questions of national identity, unity, political ethics, institutional rebuilding, and civic responsibility.

Table 3. Prevalence of Thematic Codes Identified in the 2025 Dataset Through Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

Rank	Codes	Prevalence
1	Holistic and Wholistic Pastoral Care	Very common
2	Faithful Presence as Theological Witness (Staying Leadership/Presence under Risk)	Common
3	Intergenerational Leadership Formation	Common
4	Leadership as Moral Stability and Emotional Regulation	Moderately common
5	Civic–Theological Leadership and Identity Stewardship	Moderate
6	Stewarding Institutional Continuity	Less common
7	Vulnerability, Fatigue, and the Limits of Leadership	Present, but infrequent

summarizes these emergent themes as identified through reflexive thematic analysis (see Thomas 2006; Swinton and Mowat 2016; Hole 2024) and indicates their prevalence across participants’ narratives.

Taken together, the findings here demonstrate a clear intensification and diversification of theological meaning-making within Ukrainian leadership as the war progressed. They provide a textured empirical foundation for a subsequent interpretive analysis, an analysis that will illustrate how wartime conditions have shaped—both practically and theologically—the ways Ukrainian leaders, guided by their personal Christian convictions, understand, embody, and articulate leadership.

5. Discussion

5.1. War as Context for Theologizing

The contemporary Ukrainian wartime context is marked by prolonged suffering, profound loss, and the daily strain of navigating life amid invasion, bombardment, destruction, persistent uncertainty and death. Within this environment, many leaders and ordinary Ukrainians face moments in which their emotional and cognitive capacities are overwhelmed, leaving them unable to pray, read Scripture, or articulate meaning in the face of devastation. Lived theology, in such conditions, is not born out of a profusion of words but out of a profusion of tears, groaning, and inner confusion—a theology shaped less by an abstract intellectual framework than by the raw immediacy of suffering and the struggle to discern God’s presence in the midst of darkness.

In the twentieth century, German theologians emerging from the devastation of the Second World War grappled with how to articulate theological meaning in light of their experience with Nazism and the overwhelming horrors of WWII. Jürgen Moltmann (2019) writes, “My generation was destined for a murderous war in which it was no longer a matter of victory or peace, but only of death… [life]… had become meaningless” (p. 4). Yet from this profound anguish Moltmann developed a theology of hope that resisted both the denial of suffering and the naïve belief that human progress alone—apart from God—could secure a better future for the world. His theology of hope called for a confidence that God will bring justice and healing to both the present and the future. In a certain sense, the study here reaches across similar horizons: (a) the suffering and darkness that diminish people’s capacity to think, create, and make meaning; and (b) the unexplainable yet evident emergence of hope, resilience, and faithful orientation toward an invisible but living God.

I open my discussion of this study’s findings with the words of a Ukrainian evangelical organizational leader who lost his home when his region was overrun by Russian forces, saw the facilities owned by his organization destroyed or seized, was forced to relocate several times, and had to rebuild his team after many staff members left Ukraine. He reflects:

In the context of war, I find myself concluding that the phenomenon of leadership is greatly overestimated. Contemporary statements about leadership are too theoretical and do not fully correspond to the realities of war. I do not know what to say, because the war makes me wonder whether the phenomenon of leadership is overvalued. I cannot answer some of these questions because, emotionally, I simply cannot.

(Res. D25–48)

This leader’s words reveal the profound and often intimidating complexity that war introduces into both organizational life and theological perception. His inability to respond—“emotionally, I simply cannot”—echoes what many Ukrainians have shared, that intense suffering can render both leadership language and theological language temporarily inaccessible. It is as if meaning itself has collapsed or become unrecognizable. In wartime, the lived experience of trauma often suspends the capacity for coherent meaning-making. And yet, paradoxically enough, this very rupture can become the soil in which new forms of leadership and/or theology begin to take root.

5.2. Interpreting the Intensification of Theological Meaning-Making (2022–2025)

As already indicated, study findings reveal that by 2025 a marked intensification of theological language had taken place within leadership narratives. Should this be interpreted as evidence of a population shift among Ukrainian leaders, an aggregate addition of leaders specifically Christian in outlook? While such a reading cannot be entirely excluded, the pattern more likely reflects sampling dynamics characteristic of a prolonged war in which church-based networks, humanitarian ministries, and Christian leaders remain among the most visible and communicatively active groups. Beyond these sampling considerations, alternative interpretations also merit attention. The increased use of theological language may reflect greater familiarity with religious discourse, intensified institutional formation within church-based contexts, or a culturally intelligible means of expressing moral commitment, resilience, and hope during an extended aggressive war. Acknowledging these possibilities places the findings within a broader interpretive horizon while preserving the significance of the lived theological meaning-making observed in the data.

Notwithstanding alternate possibilities, it is nonetheless theoretically plausible—and arguably the most likely case—that as the conflict persisted, leaders were increasingly being pushed beyond immediate war response toward deeper processes of meaning-making. Suffering, responsibility, and vocation were now being interpreted more explicitly in theological terms. Leadership roles over time also expanded beyond logistical coordination to include pastoral care, moral guidance, and sustained communal support—contexts in which theological language becomes particularly salient. Repeated encounters with trauma, loss, and moral ambiguity may have rendered purely managerial or secular response frameworks insufficient, thus encouraging leaders to draw more intentionally on faith-based interpretive resources. Rather than signalling a simple increase in religiosity, this shift points to a qualitative reorientation on how leadership was to be understood—as a theologically informed practice shaped by enduring suffering, care for others, and hope.

5.3. Three Movements of Lived Theology

The wartime narratives of Ukrainian leaders reveal a multi-layered form of lived theology in which beliefs, spiritual experiences, practices, and leadership responsibilities unfold in an integrated manner. Rather than rehearsing the discrete thematic codes already identified across both datasets, this section synthesizes those categories into several broader theological orientations. The analysis suggests that Ukrainian leaders’ theological reflections can be organized into three movements of the heart, mind, and soul:

• Lament, leading to and coexisting with Dependence on God
• The Presence of God, leading to and expressed through Solidarity with People
• Hope in God, leading to and sustained by faith in Restoration

These three categories form a dynamic and holistic interplay of various levels of meaning within the context of war—an interplay shaped by lament, presence, and hope. They may be understood both as a spiritual progression and as overlapping dimensions that coexist within leaders’ wartime experience. What follows is a discussion of each of these three overarching categories—movements1 (or trajectories, orientations) that together constitute the lived theology articulated through the voices of Ukrainian leaders who confess Christian faith.

Table 4. Three Theological Movements of Lived Theology in Wartime Ukraine.

Theological Movement	Core Orientation	Key Expressions in Leaders’ Narratives	Theological Significance
1. Lament and Dependence on God	Dialogue with God and Turning toward God amid suffering, fear, and limitation	Emotional vulnerability; acknowledgment of weakness; prayer; intercession for others; seeking divine strength and guidance	Suffering becomes a site for theologizing; leaders interpret wartime fragility through reliance on God’s presence, grace, and sustaining power
2. Presence of God and Solidarity with People	Embodying God’s presence through proximity, care, and steadfast companionship	Remaining with communities/followers in danger; incarnational presence; manifold service; chaplaincy; humanitarian work; emotional, moral, and spiritual support	Leadership as witness to God’s faithful presence; solidarity mirroring the incarnational model of Christ
3. Hope in God and Restoration	Orienting life and leadership toward God’s future healing and renewal	Vision for rebuilding; guidance for youth; community for spiritual formation; just peace, moral accountability; post-war restoration	Leadership as civil imagination, framing recovery, unity, and national rebuilding as expressions of Divine presence and purpose

offers a concise summary of these movements, their narrative expressions, and their theological implications.

5.3.1. Lament and Dependence on God

The Ukrainian leaders in our study navigated suffering through intentionally rooting themselves in God’s sustaining presence. This movement brought together various expressions of prayerful leadership and profound reliance on God. It encompassed leaders’ experiences of vulnerability, fatigue, and limits of personal strength, together with their efforts to maintain emotional and moral stability under the overwhelming stress of wartime conditions. These leaders carried the emotional and spiritual burdens of others while simultaneously processing their own wounds. For many, a sense of divine calling—sometimes experienced as a costly responsibility—guided this progression, moving them from true anguish to deeper dependence on God’s grace and to faithful obedience in ministry. The words of two participants illustrate this multifaceted theologizing:

At times, I feel as if we might lose this war. That feeling returns repeatedly, and the emotional swings can be overwhelming. In such moments, I pray; sometimes I cry; sometimes I walk alone in the forest. I talk with my family and with my wife, and I play with my daughter. I remind myself that I cannot give up—for their sake, and also for the sake of all those who have already died and given their lives for our freedom… When things become difficult for me, I remember that our defenders on the front lines endure far greater hardships. I also think about the historical significance of this moment and tell myself that the war cannot last forever. I often ask God, “How long?”

(Res. D25–55)

In the context of war, leadership means exercising the skills of self-regulation, resilience, and stress-resistance so that one can be an example to others. At the same time, it requires honesty and openness in expressing one’s worries, fears, and emotions. Leadership in wartime also depends on understanding one’s mission and calling from God.

(Res. D25–43)

Leaders in war do not theologize in abstraction; their theological meaning-making is born out of exposure to danger, loss, and limitations to their own strength and personal resources. This is lived theology in its rawest form. Organizational leaders participating in our study indicated that their drawing upon God’s power and availability to shield and save the Ukrainian nation was on their part an attempt to seek God “through suffering,” and “to discern God amid emotional physical limits,” and “to shape their faith in God in dialogue with loss, fear, and human fragility.” In their leadership narratives these leaders expressed deep grief, while simultaneously maintaining a resilient, God-centered orientation in the midst of trial. They recognized that many Ukrainians carry psychological, emotional, and spiritual wounds that cry out for healing. As one respondent explained, “Many Ukrainians are traumatized. We cry out to God because we need healing; we need to find a sense of peace in Christ. Only God can help us emerge from this psychological crisis.”

When in their narratives leaders express their encountering the wounded, absorbing community fears, feeling their own exhaustion, and facing a multiplied number of dilemmas, they articulate a theology rooted in suffering, dependence, and a search for divine presence. Theirs is a spiritual posture from which they interpret their unbearable pain and distress as a place in which they found hope, strength, and calling in the sustaining presence of God. One leader worded it this way: “In the first months of the full-scale war, I struggled to pray, but over time I learned to pray with just a few simple words. We do not know what will happen tomorrow, so I continue to place my hope solely in God, not in my own strength or instincts.” Leadership under the trying conditions of Ukraine’s war is thus expressed as seeking God’s presence and practicing prayer as effective means for sustaining hope. A resorting to the age-old Christian practice of prayer becomes here a way for maintaining a relational connection to God—the Provider who offers support, hope, and guidance, along with needed courage and wisdom. The following two quotations from our respondents poignantly illustrate this orientation:

For me, leadership means being strong and courageous, drawing all my strength from God—and my protection as well—because the war drains so much of my strength.

(Res. D25–14)

How do I demonstrate leadership? I pray a great deal because I need God’s presence in my life…. Because of this terrible evil that the Russians have inflicted upon our nation, we have had to relocate several times; and [as a mother] I help our children to remain content and to appreciate what the Lord provides.

(Res. D25–42)

These expressions of leadership arise from a deeply held theocentric worldview. The practice of prayer is grounded in the rational conviction that God exists and that He personally and providentially sustains creation and directs the course of history. Seen in this light, for Ukrainian organizational leaders who openly embrace the Christian faith, prayer is absolutely essential for theirs and the nation’s perseverance and deliverance. This understanding aligns with the New Testament’s instruction “to pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests” (Eph 6:18), for “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). New Testament texts describe God as “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble” (2 Cor 1:3–4). Such passages of Scripture, and countless others like them, form the very bedrock underlying the most basic convictions these leaders hold about the importance of prayer in bringing God’s presence to bear upon the contingencies of life in general and of war in particular.

Ukrainian leaders have consistently described leadership in wartime as taking initiative and assuming responsibility for others—soldiers, families, children, and communities which carry deep wounds (see Negrov and Riggio 2025). They emphasize the need for chaplains, pastors, mentors, and caregivers, recognizing that spiritual and emotional support is essential for both the present and the future post-war period. Alongside this strong sense of responsibility, however, leaders openly acknowledge their dependence on God for the strength, resilience, and wisdom required to fulfil those demands. For them, good leadership is both—somewhat paradoxically—an act of courageous initiative and a confession of reliance on God’s sustaining presence—a movement from lament to deeper dependence that shapes how they believe and live during the ongoing war.

5.3.2. The Presence of God and Solidarity with People

Participants in our study repeatedly affirmed their conviction that God is present with displaced, wounded, and suffering people—“God is with us in the midst of war”. Their hope, they said, was grounded in God’s mission (Missio Dei), understood as an ongoing expression of divine care for creation revealed in Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Because Christ, the God-Man, “dwelt among us” (John 1:14), many leaders said in their responses that they believe the Church is called upon to mirror this incarnational presence by becoming a sanctuary of care for all who are dispersed, fearful, or traumatized. In their view, Christian leadership in wartime is a form of embodied witness that integrates spirituality—life with, by, and through the Trinity—with ethical responsibility, compassion, justice, and practical effectiveness. Solidarity with people and attentiveness to their suffering thus become tangible expressions of God’s presence as mediated through the lives of their leaders.

Compelling instances of how the sensed presence of God gave rise to concrete solidarity with others appear in many leadership narratives. One such example came from a female respondent whose account weaves together reflection on leadership with her own deeply personal experience. Trust in God’s abiding presence, she claimed, is much more than just an inward spiritual leaning. Such trust also serves as a source for identifying with the suffering of others and for committing to the good of the national community. In her testimony, trust in God’s faithfulness sustained hope while simultaneously drawing her into shared vulnerability, endurance, and responsibility alongside the countless others directly affected by the war. Her words demonstrate how faith in God’s presence functioned as a spiritual resource that bound her personally to those fighting, waiting, and suffering, and thus transforming her belief into embodied solidarity and sustained hope.

Leadership in the context of the war is about support: supporting families in which someone is fighting, or volunteering, or serving in hospitals… It is about solidarity with our people. I have a constant, unwavering faith that good will prevail, that God will not abandon us. He is faithful! Regardless of the news or the predictions of politicians, I trust in God’s presence with us and in God’s power. And I thank God that I have had the experience of living under military occupation, of waiting three years for a loved one to be released from Russian captivity, of being part of a family with someone fighting at the front… Throughout all these years, I have carried this faith; it is my own frontline of struggle and hope.

(Res. D25–18)

Across both the 2022 and 2025 datasets, participants consistently described wartime leadership as an embodied commitment to remain physically and emotionally present with one’s people. Leaders emphasized that they intentionally chose not to leave Ukraine—or even their specific cities of residence, including such particularly dangerous cities as Kharkiv, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—despite enduring constant shelling, insecurity, and personal hardship. As several respondents explained, leadership meant “staying with my people in my own city even when I (had) the opportunity to leave” and “remaining in Ukraine and staying with people, (and) walking with them through every challenge.” Authentic leadership, they stressed, could not be exercised from afar; effective guidance required proximity and an expressed solidarity with those under the leader’s charge. One leader put it plainly: “In the difficult conditions of war, being present is essential. It is impossible to be a leader from a distance, from abroad.”

The 2025 dataset conveys this moral imperative even more strongly, often expressed in the Ukrainian phrase “paзом тa поpyч” (“together and close”), which communicates presence, solidarity, and shared struggle. Respondents described leadership as being onsite with people, both emotionally and physically: “present alongside those you serve and those you are leading toward a goal”; “being alongside people—being present—helping them navigate personal, family, and social crises.” This repeated emphasis reflects a ministry of presence in which proximity becomes a primary channel for support, encouragement, protection, and communal resilience. One respondent put it this way:

In wartime, leadership is not about issuing orders—‘Do this or that’—but about saying, ‘Come with me,’ and offering a gentle, lived example. More often than not, it means recognizing another person’s pain and placing over it the bandage of God’s presence, God’s love and care. Leadership becomes support—a ministry of coming alongside.

(Res. D22–27)

We coded many responses under the theme “Incarnational Presence and Solidarity,” reflecting leaders’ understanding of presence not merely as managerial availability but as a theological mode of leadership—an echo of Christ’s pattern of being with his people. From this perspective, leadership during wartime is executed less through directives and more through sustained, proximate companionship, where the presence of God himself becomes a core expression of confidence, hope, guidance, care, and peace. The perspective is aptly captured by a participant as follows:

For me, leadership in the context of the war in Ukraine is, above all, the ability to be a support for others when the ground beneath their feet is shaking. It is not about loud declarations, but about daily presence, responsibility, and the capacity to act amid uncertainty. It is about inner courage to make difficult decisions, to keep one’s focus on the suffering of people, and at the same time not to lose connection with God. Leadership today is Christ-like service—steadfast, sacrificial, and rooted in the belief that even in darkness we can carry light.

(Res. D22–34)

The theological reflections cited here are rooted in the teachings of the Bible. In the Old Testament, the Lord who commands his people to “be strong and courageous” because he “will never leave you nor forsake you” (Deut. 31:6) is the same God who centuries later promises, “I am with you… I will strengthen you and help you” (Isa. 41:10). Jesus, in the New Testament, extends this divine assurance to his disciples, anchoring their mission not in their abilities but in his abiding presence: “I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). Upon announcing his imminent return to his Father in heaven, he assures the disciples just prior to his death and resurrection that “I will not leave you as orphans” (John 14:18) and comforts them with the promise of the Spirit, who when He comes will “be with you forever” (John 14:16–17). In the midst of their fears Jesus thereby imparts to the disciples an identity as the people of God and a sense of belonging to each other in their shared possession of the Holy Spirit’s presence. Even when human faith falters, “He remains faithful, for He cannot disown Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). This divine pattern of steadfast presence formed the theological background for Christian leaders who refused to abandon their people. As God remains with his own in crisis, so faithful leaders also remain present with those entrusted to their care—embodying God’s covenantal faithfulness through presence, courage, and sacrificial solidarity.

5.3.3. Hope in God and Restoration

Participants in our research also projected theological meaning forward into the future, articulating visions of a just peace, divine calling, national identity, and manifold aspects of post-war recovery and renewal. Leaders referenced theological hope because they felt it was—and would continue to be—incumbent upon them as Ukraine’s leaders to make the difficult but necessary decisions about rebuilding communities, guiding youth, defending identity, practicing public witness, and preparing for peace. Such an agenda represents lived theology as civic imagination. This future oriented perspective was shared in our research by a number of participants, as exemplified in the following responses.

For me, leadership now and after the war is about offering genuine service, empathy, self-sacrifice, courage, and endurance in contributing to the struggle for the nation’s freedom, the search to be useful to society, the creation of strong and resilient communities, and the support people need to develop their talents and implement their noble-minded initiatives.

(Res. D22–15)

I do not particularly like the word ‘leadership’; I prefer the word ‘service’. After my city, Irpin, was evacuated in 2022, I realized that our departure had been the right decision—because if I had stayed, I might not be alive. Today I am deeply involved in various projects, and I sense that God has been preparing me throughout my life for this moment and for the work I am now carrying out. My motto is this: ‘If you are a Christian, try to discern where God is calling you, whom you should serve, and in what particular ways.’ This is what it means to live with God.

(Res. D25–37)

Several respondents described churches, youth ministries, small groups, and Christian clubs as essential communities for spiritual formation, moral guidance, and communal care during wartime. In their accounts, the church emerges as a primary locus of discipleship, identity shaping, and hope amid ongoing national trauma. One participant observed, “I am a pastor of a small Christian church in a village; my goal is to bring people to Jesus and allow God’s Spirit to guide them. I see my role as a spiritual companion who genuinely cares for them.” Another emphasized that, both now and after the war, the Church must function as “a spiritual core, a compass, guiding people toward God and a life with Him.” When reflecting on the forms of leadership Ukraine will require after the war, several respondents articulated explicitly theological expectations. Two such participants articulated those expectations in the following words:

“After the war, above all, we will need spiritual leadership. If God grants us victory, then we must teach our people to exercise gratitude toward God and to re-evaluate their lives.”

(Res. D22–19)

“We will need spiritual leadership. We will need to forgive the enemy, comfort those who mourn, and rebuild what has been destroyed. People will ask, ‘Where was God in all of this, and where was He when we suffered?’—and we must be ready to proclaim God’s goodness, and this will be very difficult.”

(Res. D25–06)

As previously mentioned, lived theology concerns the interpretation of concrete reality through a moral and spiritual framework shaped by faith—even when such interpretation is not expressed in formal theological language. Again, looking ahead to the world of a post-war Ukraine, one participant in our research tellingly revealed such a lived theology as follows:

“It seems to me that in the midst of the ongoing war we are entering a stage in which our society must demand accountability for actions rather than for words. We need people who possess integrity. War exposes everything. It reveals much about a person—whether they have integrity or not: it reveals who is merely a talker, who is a thief, who is corrupt, who occupies a public office without doing anything useful… When I think about the future of Ukraine, I ask: Will we have prosecutors or judges who can pursue cases justly and independently? Will our systems and institutions act with the highest degree of integrity? Will our people genuinely and honestly care for veterans and the traumatized? My concern is not limited to politicians alone—it concerns every person, regardless of their particular station in society. I hope God will change us and guide us!”

(Res. D25–10)

These three theological movements—Lament and Dependence on God, The Presence of God and Solidarity with People, and Hope in God and Restoration—resonate strongly with findings from other empirical studies of forced migrants during the war. For example, in their analysis of 130 narratives from Ukrainian Christian forced migrants across 24 countries, Negrov et al. (2023) show that displaced believers theologically reframed leadership through prayer, trust in God, engagement with Scripture, and worship. These practices directly correspond to the movement of “Lament and Dependence”, where prayer and reliance on God link Ukrainian refugees’ responses to suffering. The virtues identified by migrant participants—love, courage, humility, perseverance—mirror the movement of “Presence and Solidarity”, emphasizing leadership as a calm presence that builds unity, counters fear, and supports others amid disruption. Finally, such identified leadership practices as sustaining unity, promoting the common good, and interpreting vocation as divine guidance reflect the forward-looking theological vision for communal healing and national renewal that characterises the movement of “Hope and Restoration”. Together, existing parallels across various studies confirm that Ukrainian Christians, either from among forced migrants abroad or from organizational leaders who remain in Ukraine, consistently interpret wartime leadership through an integrated spiritual grid shaped by suffering, solidarity, and eschatological hope.

5.4. Expanding Theological Horizons

Wartime conditions have highlighted the importance of theological sense-making for Christian leaders. As our study results show, interpreting suffering within a framework of divine purpose helped Ukrainian communities move forward from lament to transformation. This perceived purpose offered them a language for expressing their grief, anchoring their hope, and understanding how God might bring renewal out of their collective trauma. Respondents to our studies also acknowledged the need to expand their theological horizons, recognizing that with such expansion comes empowerment. As one respondent noted:

For me, leadership is about shaping the narratives and meanings now and in the future. We need narratives that will guide us now and after victory. It is true that our country is living through a narrative of pain—suffering, loss, and death—but we must pass through this experience in a way that transforms us. We should not remain only sufferers; something new must be born in us. God entrusts us with these painful moments so that we may draw lessons and emerge renewed. This experience of blood and loss must lead not to despair but to the birth of something right and beautiful.

(Res. 22–31)

Participants also reported that spirituality was expressed in the form of a strongly felt national solidarity. Support for the army, veterans, disabled people, resistance to Russian propaganda, collectively experienced with one mind and heart, infused a spiritual unity sometimes as significant as a denominational religious identity. Many likewise observed that joint service during evacuations, humanitarian work, and chaplaincy created unexpected kinship with Christians of other traditions and even with non-religious volunteers. Shared compassion and diaconal ministry simply outweighed confessional distinctions. One leader summarized this ethos succinctly:

“True leadership follows Christ’s example by being present with people, assuming responsibility within a diverse community, and practicing a ministry of presence even when it challenges official religious expectations”.

(Res. 22–08)

5.5. Implications for Practice

The findings of this study suggest that leadership formation in Ukraine as the war continues and in the post-war period must attend carefully to processes of theological meaning-making specifically shaped by the experience of war. The three theological movements identified in the analysis—(1) Lament and Dependence on God, (2) The Presence of God and Solidarity with People, and (3) Hope in God and Restoration—offer a practical framework for churches, humanitarian organisations, and theological educators engaged in Ukraine’s ongoing endurance, healing, renewal, and reconstruction. These movements stand out as highly relevant to any present or future discussions within Ukraine upon what role theology should play in its more public and broader civic leadership aspects when brought to bear upon questions concerned with moral responsibility, social cohesion, and the country’s post-war future.

First, the movement of Lament and Dependence on God highlights the need for practices that legitimise vulnerability, grief, and moral exhaustion. For churches and faith-based organisations, this implies creating liturgical, pastoral, and communal spaces where suffering can be named before God without any pressure for immediate resolution. In leaders’ narratives, lament included recognition of trauma, the absence of clear answers, and the questioning of theological assumptions that might appear solid in times of peace but become blurred, contested, and painful in wartime. Leaders also articulated theology through honest acknowledgment of personal limits, indicating that spiritual resilience amid trauma is sustained not by triumphalist narratives but by humble dependence on God. For practitioners, the understandings cited here underscore the importance of providing pastoral care, spiritual direction, and trauma-aware leadership. Such practices contribute, on the one hand, to reducing performance pressure and, on the other hand, to supporting emotional regulation, moral clarity, and sustained responsibility for mutual care and compassion.

Second, the movement The Presence of God and Solidarity with People points to the ethical and theological significance of proximity and a ministry of presence. Leadership was repeatedly described in study responses as remaining with one’s community—physically, emotionally, and spiritually—despite danger, fatigue, prolonged hardship, and uncertainty. For churches, humanitarian organisations, and other community-based actors, this finding challenges models that prioritise distance, episodic engagement, or short-term intervention. What is affirmed instead is the value of relational continuity, peer learning, and incarnational presence. Within church and community settings such presence nurtures forms of healthy patriotism, grounded not in exclusion or hostility but in shared responsibility, care for the vulnerable, and commitment to the common good. Importantly, leaders’ narratives suggested that faith communities increasingly understood their mission during the war as extending beyond ecclesial boundaries to ministering to non-church populations as well as the church faithful. This extended ministry was accomplished through nonconditional practices of service, accompaniment, and solidarity. Solidarity itself was described as the capacity to remain together, to learn from one another, and to grieve collectively—to weep together amid the perverse logic and violence of war. This shared presence has become a moral and spiritual resource that now supports processes of forgiveness, seeking justice, and restoring families and communities fractured by a seemingly never-ending conflict. In the context of post-war reconstruction, such practices should help foster trust, social cohesion, and moral credibility, all of which are essential for rebuilding collapsed institutions, repairing broken relationships, and sustaining a just peace.

Third, the movement of Hope in God and Restoration frames leadership as future-oriented responsibility. Participants articulated hope not as denial of suffering but as a commitment to rebuilding lives, communities, and moral frameworks in light of God’s promised renewal. For practitioners, this implies that leadership formation must integrate theological imagination with civic responsibility, preparing leaders to engage with questions of justice, reconciliation, intergenerational formation, and institutional renewal. Churches and educational institutions, in particular, are well-positioned to shape leaders who can hold together the memory of suffering, the hope of God’s closeness, and a vision for renewal, thus guiding communities toward sustainable development rather than mere survival.

Taken together, these three movements suggest that effective leadership practice in both wartime and post-war Ukraine is neither purely pragmatic nor exclusively theological. Moving forward, attentiveness to these movements should help Ukrainian society cultivate relational, experiential, and reciprocal learning within communities of mutual care, where shared trauma becomes a context for collective discernment, responsibility, and renewal. The dynamic interplay of lament, presence, and hope thus informs how leaders interpret suffering, assume responsibility, and orient their actions towards the common good, thereby contributing to Ukraine’s long-term recovery, renewal, and societal well-being.

By illuminating how Ukrainian non-military leaders interpret everyday, commonplace leadership within the context of war and how they relate that leadership to their faith in God, this study has implications that extend beyond ecclesial contexts. The findings draw attention to relational, moral, and spiritual practices—such as shared lament, mutual care, faithful presence, and hope-oriented responsibility—that sustain communities under conditions of extreme pressure. In this sense, the study invites the wider Ukrainian and global society, including non-religious audiences, to recognise believers and faith communities not only as religious actors but also as reservoirs of social resilience. Drawing upon the wisdom, practices and experience of those communities will well inform broader conversations about solidarity, justice, and responsibility, as well as communal hope for renewal in times of national tragedy.

5.6. Methodological Limitations

This study is not without its limitations, of which the two most significant ones may be spotlighted as follows. First, as previously mentioned, the 2025 dataset has been analysed only by a single researcher, which does not permit formal assessment of inter-coder reliability. While this approach has ensured interpretive coherence and deep engagement with the data, future research would benefit from multi-coder designs or collaborative analytic teams. Second, and again as previously discussed the sample reflects participant access primarily through church-based and Christian-affiliated networks, particularly in the latter phases of the research. As a result, the findings should not, as has already been addressed earlier, be interpreted as evidence of an increased level of religious observance or practice within Ukraine’s leadership or population more generally. Rather, the findings are best understood as illustrative of lived theological meaning-making within Christian-influenced leadership contexts during the prolonged conflict of the current Russo-Ukrainian war. The study’s limitations therefore do not undermine its contributions to its stated purposes; they serve instead to clarify the scope and interpretive boundaries of its findings in relation to those purposes.

5.7. Directions for Future Research

Along with the findings and practical implications of this study, several directions for future research also warrant attention. Longitudinal and comparative studies spanning wartime and post-war phases would deepen understanding of how lived theology develops over time. Comparative research across religious traditions, Christian denominations, and socio-cultural contexts could clarify both contextual and transferable dimensions of theological meaning-making. Further studies might examine peer learning and mutual care groups as sites of leadership formation and theological reflection. Future research could also test the three theological movements identified in this study—lament, presence, and hope—across different contexts and phases of conflict and recovery, exploring how they persist, diminish, or take new forms as communities move from survival toward reconstruction and renewal. Interdisciplinary approaches integrating practical theology, trauma research, and leadership studies would further strengthen critical and methodological engagement with faith-based meaning-making in post-war contexts.

6. Conclusions

When asked how Christians should pray for and stand with Ukrainians, prominent English New Testament scholar Prof. N. T. Wright responded with a stunning insight. They must come before God, he said, with anguish on their hearts, confessing that “we do not know what to do,” and learn to pray by holding Ukraine’s pain in the presence of the God who hears, heals, and is able to effect a just peace. Prayer, he suggested, requires confronting the world’s brutality while clinging to God’s promises with hope for justice and restoration (Wright 2022).

The findings of this study reveal that Ukrainian Christian leaders embody this same attitude. Their leadership has not only been expressed through action, service, and sacrificial care, but also through theological interpretation of their experience—lamenting before God, praying for strength, relying on His sustaining presence, and trusting in His guidance amid uncertainty. Their leadership is not merely strategic or reactive but grounded in a theocentric vision shaped by the conviction that God is with His people in suffering and that His purposes unfailingly endure throughout history.

Today, as I write this conclusion, nearly four years have passed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion into Ukraine on 24 February 2022. I close this article with a citation from a Ukrainian educator and seminary department head interviewed in 2022, on the fifty-seventh day of the war. Reflecting on leadership in wartime, he observed:

“Ukraine today is not simply a battlefield… It is sacred soil. Many things are revealed here. In war, you discover parts of yourself that were previously unknown—some surprising in good ways, others not. War becomes a catalyst that uncovers hidden potential and forces you to see yourself from the outside…. When I think about people, I admire some, am inspired by some, and feel disappointment or confusion about others. This is what war does: it throws you from one emotional range into another. My understanding of leadership has not changed, but it has gained deeper meaning. Phrases that once seemed theoretical now carry real weight…. Wartime leadership is shouldering both the burden of responsibility and the willingness to take risks—sometimes to the very edge of despair.”

(Res. D22–16)

By integrating self-discovery, moral responsibility, and sacrificial love, this and other similar narratives express lived theology. Leadership is not exercised here as authority but carried as a burden for the sake of others. Human honesty emerges when one’s own strength reaches its limits and a leader is forced to confront his or her fragility before God. War sharpens the leader’s spiritual and moral vision, revealing courage, integrity, and self-giving love—and, then again, also revealing cowardice and corruption. Such discernment, forged through suffering and assuming responsibility, shows how Ukrainian leaders interpret their war experience through a deeply theocentric and morally charged lens.

Taken together, these insights (just cited), along with the many others put forward and discussed within this present study, suggest—once again—that theological meaning-making is an essential resource for leadership in contexts of war and collective trauma. This study, therefore, assumes its rightful place alongside ongoing scholarly conversations about lived theology, practical theology, and leadership. Demonstrated has been the thesis of how faith, suffering, service, and responsibility are woven together in the lives of ordinary, everyday Ukrainian leaders and followers alike, who work together to guide one another toward God and through the tragedy of war.