Firstly, I believe that Law 10221 does not substantially alter the “rules of the game” in the church-state field – just because in this state laws generally do not significantly alter the “rules of the game.” And considering the “creative” approach of the courts to interpret laws and the duties of government agencies, I would generally not be too concerned about what laws the parliament passes.
This does not mean that the government should be ignored – unfortunately, we don’t have another formal legitimate center of governance – but it is worth restoring the natural distance between the churches and the government. The church (or rather the religious community of Ukraine in its broadest sense) should remember that it has the consistent trust of the vast majority of residents of Ukraine, while the level of support for the president is less than 20%, and resume a partnership dialogue with the authorities.
Symbolically it means meeting on neutral territory, at a time approved in advance by both parties and only for discussion – and resolution (!) – of issues of common concern. If no mutually acceptable compromise is found at prior negotiations, there is neither need nor sense to meet.
Overcoming internal servility and the ability of the president's team to impose its own agenda (and the church has a moral right, if to believe that “the only source of power in Ukraine is the people,” who trusts religious organizations and the head of state) is the only way to prevent the repetition of Law 10221.