GEORGE PATRONOS

IN MEMORIAM
 CEMES
8a

PETROS VASSILIADIS

ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ
OF HONOUR AND MEMORY
ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΩΝ, ΙΕΡΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΒΑΛΛΟΝΤΙΚΩΝ
ΜΕΛΕΤΩΝ «ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ ΠΑΝΤΕΛΕΗΜΩΝ ΠΑΠΑΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΥ»
8a

ΠΕΤΡΟΣ ΒAΣIΛΕIAΔΗΣ

ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ
ΤΙΜΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΜΝΗΜΗΣ

Εκδόσεις CEMES
Θεσσαλονίκη 2018
 To all my esteemed and respected Church Leaders
and great theologians of the past and beloved academic scholars of the present
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS
(pp. vii-xi)

PREFACE
(pp. 1-4)

VOLUME I

Chapter 1 - Βαρθολομαίω Κωνσταντινουπόλεως

ST. PAUL: APOSTLE OF FREEDOM IN CHRIST
(pp. 7-14)

Chapter 2 - Επισκόποις Παλαιάς και Νέας Ρώμης

CONCILIARITY AND PRIMACY.
FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT TO THE PRESIDENT ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC
THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
(pp. 15-20)

Chapter 3 – Θεοδώρω Αλεξανδρείας

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH, THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN, AND
THE ORDER OF DEACONESSES:
AN ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL APPROACH
(pp. 21-36)

Chapter 4 – +Ιγνατίω Αντιοχείας

ECONOMY, POVERTY, WEALTH, AND ECOLOGY.
CONTEMPORARY BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP
AND THE MARGINALIZED TRADITION OF ANTIOCH
(pp. 37-44)

Chapter 5 - Θεοφίλω Ιεροσολύμων

THE TRANSLATION OF MARTYRIA IESOU IN REVELATION
(pp. 45-50)

Chapter 6 – Κυρίλλω Μόσχας

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WORLD RELIGIONS FOR ECOLOGY,
THE WORLD ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
(pp. 51-58)

Chapter 7 – Ειρηναίω Βελιγραδίου

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN FROM AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE
(pp. 59-66)
 Chapter 8 – Δανιήλ Βουκουρεστίου
HOLINESS IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY
(pp. 67-82)

Chapter 9 – +Χριστοδούλω Αθηνών

THE WORD OF GOD AND THE CHURCH
FROM AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE
(pp. 83-96)

Chapter 10 – Αναστασίω Τιράνων

MISSION AND PROSELYTISM: AN ORTHODOX CONTRIBUTION
(pp. 97-116)

Chapter 11- Δημητρίω Αμερικής

THE BIBLICAL (N.T.) FOUNDATION OF BAPTISM
(BAPTISMAL THEOLOGY AS A PREREQUISITE OF EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY)
(pp. 117-132)

Chapter 12 – +Δαμασκηνώ Αδριανουπόλεως

THE IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY OF AN
ORTHODOX-PENTECOSTAL DIALOGUE
(pp. 133-139)

Chapter 13 – +Διονυσίω Νεαπόλεως

READING THE BIBLE FROM THE ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE
(pp. 141-146)

Chapter 14 – Ιωάννη Περγάμου

AN ORTHODOX BIBLICAL COMNTRIBUTION
TO A (POST) MODERN APPROACH TO CHRISTOLOGY
(pp. 147-159)

Chapter 15 +Μελετίω Νικοπόλεως

THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF THE ORTHODOX LITURGY.
FROM THE BIBLICAL DYNAMISM TO A DOXOLOGICAL LITURGISM
(pp. 161-175)

Chapter 16 – Διοδώρω Σύρου

FROM THE PAULINE COLLECTION TO PHOS HILARON OF CAPPADOCIA
(pp. 177-183)

VOLUME II

I. BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS

Chapter 17 – +Ιωάννη Αναστασίου

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE IN EARLY CHRISTIAN HERMENEUTICS
(pp. 189-192)
Chapter 18 – Θεοδώρω Στυλιανοπούλω
BEYOND THE LITURGY vs ETHICS DIVIDE IN BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS
(pp. 193-204)
 Chapter 19 - +Σάββα Αγουρίδη
BEYOND theologia crucis: JESUS OF NAZARETH FROM Q TO JOHN VIA PAUL
(or John as a Radical Reinterpretation of Jesus of Nazareth)
(pp. 205-218)
Chapter 20 - +Βασιλείω Στογιάννω
ST. PAUL'S REFLECTION ON ΓΕΝΗΘΗΤΩ TO ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΣΟΥ:
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES IN PAULINE THEOLOGY
(pp. 219-224)
Chapter 21 - +Veselin Kesich
EQUALITY AND JUSTICE IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY AND IN PAUL:
THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PAULINE COLLECTION
(pp. 225-230)
Chapter 22 - +John Meyendorff
SANCTUS AND THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Some Anthropological and Theological Insights on the
Communal and Historical Dimension of Christian Liturgy
(pp. 231-240)
Chapter 23 – Paul Tarazi
MYSTERIOLOGY: THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY
(pp. 241-250)

II. ECUMENICAL REFLECTIONS

Chapter 24 - +Nικολάω Νησιώτη

ORTHODOXY AND ECUMENISM
(pp. 253-264)
Chapter 25 – Ιωάννη Καραβιδοπούλω
ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH:
SOME BIBLICAL INSIGHTS ON THE EUCHARISTIC ECCLESIOLOGY
(pp. 265-272)
Chapter 26 - +George Florovsky
EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY CONTEXTUALIZED?
(pp. 273-288)
Chapter 27 – Ευαγγέλω Θεοδώρου
DEACONESSES, ORDINATION OF WOMEN AND ORTHODOX THEOLOGY
(pp. 289-294)

Chapter 28 – Adriana Destro and Mauro Pesce

RITUAL AND ETHICS:
THE THEOLOGICAL MEANING OF THE SACRAMENT OF REPENTANCE
(pp. 295-302)
Chapter 29 – Konrad Raiser
THE FUTURE AND VIABILITY OF ECUMENICAL THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
(pp. 303-308)

Chapter 30 – Αλκιβιάδη Καλύβα

ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE 3RD MILLENNIUM
(pp. 309-320)
 III. MISSIOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS

Chapter 31 - +Alexander Schmemann

LITURGICAL RENEWAL AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
(pp. 323-334)

Chapter 32 - +Dumitru Staniloae

ESCHATOLOGY AND THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH
(pp. 335-346)

Chapter 33 – Νικολάω Ζαχαροπούλω

THE EUCHARIST PERSPECTIVE OF THE CHURCH’S MISSION
TODAY AND TOMORROW
(pp. 347-362)

Chapter 34 – Αντωνίω-Αιμιλίω Ταχιάω

TOWARDS A EUCHARISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF MISSION.
RUSSIA FACING EVANGELICALS
(pp. 363-374)

Chapter 35 – Γρηγορίω Ζιάκα

INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE AS A MISSIOLOGICAL ISSUE:
RECONCILIATION AS A NEW MISSION PARADIGM
(pp. 375-384)

Chapter 36 – Γεωργίω Μαντζαρίδη

ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY AND POLITICS
(pp. 385-394)

Chapter 37 – Γεωργίω Γαλίτη

TRADITION FROM A MISSION THEOLOGY PERSPECTIVE
(pp. 395-340)

Chapter 38 - +Ion Bria

THE MISSIONARY IMPLICATIONS OF ST. PAUL’S EUCHARISTIC INCLUSIVENESS
(pp. 341-406)

Chapter 39 – Αλεξάνδρω Γουσίδη

BEYOND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM:
THE CHURCH’s WITNESS IN A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY
(pp. 407-414)

Chapter 40 – Γεωργίω Πατρώνω

MISSION-ORTHODOXY-WCC: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTER-FAITH,
ECOLOGICAL, AND EONOMIC WITNESS IN THE 10 TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF WCC
(pp. 415-422)
 PREFACE
ANTIΔΩΡΟΝ ΟF ΗΟΝΟUR ΑΝD ΜΕΜΟRΥ is a 3-volume-book. The first one is
dedicated to Church leaders, and the second one to all those great theologians of the past and beloved
academic scholars of the present. They both consist of my scholarly contributions in English. The third
one contains all my contributions in Greek dedicated to both ecclesiastical figures and academic
theologians. They are all my scholarly contributions produced within a period of 30 years, prepared and
published mostly for Memorial or Festal volumes.
The 16 chapters of the first volume and the 24 of the second cover a wide scientific area of my
special concerns, ranging from Biblical, to Liturgical, Ecumenical and Mission theology. All these
scientific areas were sometimes mixed in a conscious attempt to go beyond the fragmentation of theology in
our modern critical era. They are reprinted here with minor modifications, and the year of their first
presentation, marked under their title in parenthesis.
The reader will immediately notice the progress both in the respective theological disciplines and in
the author’s views. At the same time some inevitable repetitions will come up, which were deli berately left
unchanged for that purpose. They are all meant as a humble GIFT back (ANTIΔΩΡΟΝ) to all those
ecclesiastical leaders for their pastoral, ecumenical and missionary service to the Church of Christ.
All of them in one capacity or another have rendered their service to the ecumenical (inter-Christian
or inter-faith) dialogue, which according to the recommendation of the Holy and Great Council of the
Orthodox Church is “important for all Christians, inspired by common fundamental principles of the
Gospel…in response to the thorny problems of the contemporary world, based on the prototype of the new
man in Christ.” (Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, § 23).
The first volume consists of 16 chapters.
Chapter 1 was my paper delivered at an ecumenical symposium on St. Paul, organized by the
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in the margin of the 2008 Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox
Churches. It first appeared in Archbishop Demetrios of America - J. Chryssavgis (eds.), In the Footsteps
of Saint Paul. An Academic Symposium. Papers Presented at the Pauline Symposium October 11-16,
2008, Brookline Massachusetts 2011, pp. 153-167. In its Greek translation, as “Η εν Χριστώ
Ελευθερία κατά τον Απόστολο Παύλο,” it was published in the Aristotle University’s Theological
School’s Festal volume to Patriarch Bartholomew’s 20 th anniversary of his enthronement, entitled Εις
Μαρτύριον τοις Έθνεσι. Τόμος Χαριστήριος Εικοσαετηρικός εις τον Οικουμενικόν Πατριάρχην κ.κ.
Βαρθολομαίον, Thessaloniki 2011, pp. 87-103.
Chapter 2 was prepared as an Orthodox contribution for an ad hoc issue on the Primacy of the
Roman Pope of an East European journal, and for that reason I dedicated to the bishops of the Old and
the New Rome of that date, Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew.
Chapter 3 was prepared this year to honour His Beatitude the Patriarch of Alexandria for his
initiative to revive in his Church the order of Deaconesses. A German translation was published in
Ökumenische Rundschau 66 (4/2017) pp. 534-559.
Chapter 4 was my contribution to the Memorial volume of the late Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius
IV, entitled “Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch. A Great Spiritual Leader of Peace, Dialogue and
Reconciliation, Koeln 2015, pp. 169-180.
Chapter 5 first appeared in The Bible Translator 35 (1985), pp. 129-134, and is now dedicated
to the Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilos.
Chapter 6 was my paper in an Inter-Faith conference organized by the Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly of Orthodoxy on “The Social Dimension of Monotheistic Religions” (Istanbul, 2-5 March
2013). It is dedicated to Patriarch Cyril, taking one step further the areas not covered in his 2011 book,
Freedom and Responsibility: A Search for Harmony, Human Rights and Personal Dignity.
Chapter 7 was first published in Daniel Patte (Gen.ed.), Global Bible Commentary, Nashville,
2004, pp. 412-418, and is now dedicated to the Patriarch of Belgrade Irinej.
Chapter 8 was first published in S. T. Kimbrough Jr (ed.), Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality,
Crestwood New York 2002, pp. 101-116, and is now dedicated to the Patriarch of Bucharest Daniel.
Chapter 9 was my contribution to the late Archbishop Christodoulos’ Memorial volume, edited by
the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece under the title, Χριστόδουλος. Αφιερωματικός τόμος, Athens
2010, pp. 539-561. It was also published earlier in Italian translation in La Parola di Dionella Vitae
nella Missione della Chiesa, Lateranum 08 LXXIV 1, Lateran University Press, 2008, pp.145-
166.
Chapter 10 was my contribution to Archbishop Anastasios’ Festschrift, entitled El. Voulgarakis
et.a. (eds.), “Πορευθέντες...,” Χαριστήριος τόμος προς τιμήν του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αλβανίας
Αναστασίου (Γιαννουλάτου), Αthens 1997, pp. 77-97. It came out earlier in IRM 85 (1996), pp. 257-
275, and slightly improved as ch. 2 of my book Eucharist and Witness, WCC-HC Press: Geneva-
Boston, 1998. It is here published in its enlarged form, prepared for the “Reader” of the Global
Christian Forum’s project on Proselytism.
Chapter 11 was prepared for a symposium of Orthodox and Catholics New Testament Scholars,
held in Volos, Greece, and was published in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 60 no 3-4 (2015),
pp. 11-44.
Chapter 12 was published in the Memorial volume of the late Metropolitan Damaskinos
Papandreou, Εκκλησία-Οικουμένη-Πολιτική. Χαριστήρια στον Μητροπολίτη Αδριανουπόλεως
Δαμασκηνό, Athens 2007, pp. 643-654.
Chapter 13 was my contribution to a Festschrift of the first bishop of my diocese, under the title
Εικοσιπενταετηρικόν. Αφιέρωμα στον Μητροπολίτη Νεαπόλεως και Σταυρουπόλεως κ. Διονύσιο,
Neapoli, Thessaloniki 1999, pp. 313-321. It also appeared in The Ecumenical Review 51 (1999), pp.
25-30.
Chapter 14 was my contribution to the conference of the International Academy of Religious
Sciences, in which Metropolitan of Pergamon Ioannis Zizioulas has rendered his invaluable service. It
was published in S. G. Hall (ed.), Jesus Christ Today. Studies of Christology in Various Contexts,
Berlin-New York 2009, pp. 45-62.
Chapter 15 was prepared for a symposium of Orthodox and Catholics New Testament Scholars
held in Florence, Italy, and was later expanded on the 5th anniversary of the late Metropolitan of
Nikopolis and Preveza Meletios Kalamaras’ repose.
Chapter 16 was my contribution to a Festal volume for Metropolitan of Syros Dorotheos, entitled
Οιακοστρόφιον. Τιμητικός Τόμος Σεβασμιωτάτου Μητροπολίται Σύρου-Τήνου κ. Δωροθέου Β΄, επί
τη δεκαετηρίδι της Αρχιερατείας αυτού 2001-2011, Tinos 2013. It was also published in St.
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 56 (2012), pp. 5-16.
The 24 chapters of the second volume are divided into three parts.
The first 7 chapters are all biblical studies of hermeneutical, exegetical and theological nature.
Chapter 17 was the contribution to my professor and later colleague Ioannis Anastasiou’s
Memorial Volume, Μνήμη Ιωάννου Ευ. Αναστασίου, Thessaloniki 1992, 51-59.
Chapter 18 was prepared and published in the Festschrift to the Rev. Professor Emeritus of the
Holy Cross Orthodox Theological School, Theodore Stylianopoulos, Studies in Orthodox Hermeneutics:
A Festschrift in Honor of Theodore G. Stylianopoulos
Chapter 19 is dedicated to my mentor in biblical scholarship, the late professor Savvas Agouridis.
It was first published in his Festschrift published in GOTR 47 (2002) 139-163.
Chapter 20 was my contribution to the Memorial volume of my colleague Vasilios Stoyannos,
entitled ΔΙΑΚΟΝΙΑ. Αφιέρωμα στη Μνήμη Βασιλείου Στογιάννου, Thessalonik,1988, 281-291. It
first appeared as “Your Will be done: Reflections from St. Paul,” IRM 75 (1986) 376-382.
 Chapter 21 is dedicated to the late professor of Biblical Theology at St. Vladimir’s Theological
Seminary, Veselin Keshich. It was first published under the same title in SVTQ 36 (1992) 51-59.
Chapter 22 is dedicated to a great Orthodox scholar, the late Dean of St. Vladimir’s Theological
Seminary, John Meyendorff, first published in L. Padovese (ed.), Atti del VII Simposio di Efeso Su S.
Gionanni Apostolo, Rome 1999, 143-156.
Chapter 23 is dedicated to my colleague, the Rev. Prof. Emeritus Paul Tarazi. It was published in
Vol. 2 of the Electronic “Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Tarazi.”
The next 7 chapters are all critical studies of ecumenical character.
Chapter 24 is dedicated to a great Orthodox ecumenical figure, the late Nikos Nissiotis, first
published in P. Vassiliadis (ed.), Oikoumene and Theology. The 1993-95 Erasmus Lectures in
Ecumenical Theology, Thessaloniki, 1996, 149-180.
Chapter 25 was the contribution I prepared for my colleague, Prof. Emeritus Ioannis
Karavidopoulos’ Festschrift. entitled Αγία Γραφή και Σύγχρονος Άνθρωπος. Τιμητικός Τόμος στον
Καθηγητή Ιωάννη Δ. Καραβιδόπουλο, Thessaloniki 2006, 607-618.
Chapter 26 is dedicated to the most influential Orthodox theologian in modern time, Fr. George
Florovsky, dean of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary. It was first published in the Journal of Eastern
Christian Studies 60 (1-4), 281-306.
Chapter 27 is dedicated to Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou, pioneer in raising the issue of the
female diaconal ministry in the Orthodox Church, in honor of whom the conference on the subject was
held in 2015. It appeared in Fossil or Leaven. The Church we Hand Down. Essays Collected in
Honor of the 50th Anniversary of New Skete, New York/Montreal 2016,176-181.
Chapter 28 is dedicated to my Italian colleagues, Adriana Destro and Mauro Pesce, being my
Orthodox contribution (together with my pupil Prof. Dimitrios Passakos) to an anthropological
conference organized and published by them on Rituals and Ethics: Patterns of Repentance. Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Peeters: Leuven 2004, 71-80.
Chapter 29 is dedicated to my colleague at the University of Bochum, Germany, and former
Secretary General of WCC, Rev. Prof. Konrad Raiser. It is based on my response to his keynote address
at a global consultation on ecumenical education and ministerial formation. Part of it was first published
in J. Pobee (ed.), Viable Theological Education. Ecumenical Imperative, Catalyst of Renewal, Geneva
1997, 66-72.
Chapter 30 is dedicated to the Rev. Prof. Emeritus of the Holy Cross Orthodox Theological School
Alkiviadis Calivas. It was my contribution to a jointly organized with him Orthodox consultation
(Athens, 2004), in preparation of the World Mission Conference, held in Athens, 2005.
The last 10 studies are of missiological nature.
Chapter 31 was my lecture at the May 2013 Colloquium of the Montreal Orthodox Institute on
Liturgical Renewal, and is dedicated to the memory of Fr. Alexander Schmemann, pioneer in liturgical
renewal. It first appeared in in Fossil or Leaven. The Church we Hand Down. Essays Collected in
Honor of the 50th Anniversary of New Skete, New York/Montreal 2016, pp. 183ff.
Chapter 32 was presented at a symposium to honour the great Romanian Orthodox theologian
Dumitru Staniloae, and was published in An Homage Dumitru Staniloae, Bucarest 2002, 123-135.
Chapter 33 was dedicated to my colleague Prof. Emeritus Nikolaos Zacharopoulos upon his
retirement. It was published under the same title in his Festschrift, Τιμητικό αφιέρωμα στον Ομότιμο
Καθηγητή Νίκο Γρ. Ζαχαρόπουλο, ΕΕΘΣΘ 7 (1997) 21-44.
Chapter 34 was dedicated to my late colleague Prof. Emeritus Antonios-Emil Tachiaos upon his
retirement. It was published under the same title in his Festschrift, Τιμητικό Αφιέρωμα στον Ομότιμο
Καθηγητή Aντώνιο-Αιμίλιο Ταχιάο, ΕΕΘΣΘ, 8 (1998) 75-94.
Chapter 35 was dedicated to my colleague Prof. Emeritus Grigorios Ziakas upon his retirement. It
was published under the same title in his Festschrift, Φιλία και Κοινωνία. Τιμητικός Τόμος στον
Καθηγητή Γρηγόριο Δ. Ζιάκα, Thessaloniki 2008, 647-662.
Chapter 36 was dedicated to my colleague Prof. Emeritus Georgios Mantzaridis upon his
retirement. It was published in Greek in his Festschrift, Θεολογία και Κόσμος σε Διάλογο. Τιμητικός
Τόμος στον Καθηγητή Γεώργιο Ι. Μαντζαρίδη, Thessaloniki 2004, 127-144; and previously in J.
Neusner (ed.), God’s Rule. The Politics of World Religions, Georgetown University Press, Washington
2003, 86-105.
Chapter 37 was dedicated to my colleague Prof. Emeritus Georgios Galitis upon his retirement. It
was published under the same title in his Festschrift, Διακονία-Λειτουργία-Χάρισμα. Τιμητικός Τόμος
προς τον Ομότιμο Καθηγητή Γεώργιο Α. Γαλίτη, Athens 2006, 583-593.
Chapter 38 was dedicated to the memory of the Romanian Orthodox missiologist, serving for many
years at the World Council of Churches, Rev. Ion Bria. It was published under the same title in his
Memorial Volume, Ν. Μosoiu (ed.), Τhe Relevance of Reverend Professor Ιοn Βria’s Work for
Contemporary Society and for the Life of the Church, Sibiu 2010, 123-128 (and in Romanian 129-
134).
Chapter 39 is dedicated to the memory of my colleague Alexander Gousidis. It was published after
his retirement in his Festschrift, Τιμητικό Αφιέρωμα στον Ομότιμο Καθηγητή Aλέξανδρο Γουσίδη,
ΕΕΘΣΘ 9 (1999) 75-94.
Chapter 40 was dedicated to my colleague, Prof. Emeritus Georgios Patronos, upon his retirement.
It was recently published in his Festschrift, Εκκλησία-Θεολογία-Βασιλεία. Τιμητικός Τόμος γιά
τόν Ὁ μότιμο Καθηγητή το ῦ Πανεπιστημίου Ἀθηνῶ ν Γεώργιο Π. Πατρῶ νο, Athens 2018.

Christmas 2018
Petros Vassiliadis
 Chapter 40
MISSION-ORTHODOXY-WCC:
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTER-FAITH, ECOLOGICAL, AND EONOMIC WITNESS
IN THE 10TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF WCC

Dedicated to Georges Patronos’ memory

The General Assembly of WCC in Busan, South Korea (30 October-8 November,
2013), was the 10th in the history of this privileged ecumenical organization in the past 65
years of its life, and the 2 nd in Asia after its historic meeting in New Delhi in 1961, 1 which
was significant for two main reasons: the full integration of the Orthodox Christian
family in the ecumenical movement, and the importance it laid on the inter-faith
encounter and dialogue, especially with regard to the old “mission paradigm” of a more
arrogant and offensive strategy that was followed by that time by most mission agencies.
The interdependence, therefore, of the Orthodox Christianity with the new
paradigm in Christian mission made the Busan Assembly a unique opportunity to change
in a positive manner even more radically the route of our Churches’ witness and
ecumenical endeavour. In my view the two most important documents that this wide
Christian gathering has reflected upon are the 2012 AGAPE Call for Action, entitled
“Economy of Life, Justice, and Peace for All: A Call for Action,” and the New Mission
Statement, entitled “Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes”.
Both these important documents addressed in a complementary way the Assembly
theme: God of life, lead us to justice and peace.

a. In what follows I will briefly comment on these two documents in that order,
since it was exactly the direction they recommend for the Christian witness is what
initially the Orthodox expected as the very first steps the ecumenical movement should
take, even before the 1910 Edinburgh mission conference, considered in the West as the
beginning of the ecumenical era. 2 The famous Circular Letters of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in 1902, 1904, and later in 1920, to all Christian Churches insisted that social
and other practical activities of the Churches should not be postponed until a complete
doctrinal agreement is achieved. Only through cooperation in social issues and joint
commitment in the name of Christ for the sake of humanity, the circular went on, can a
visible unity of the Church be accomplished. 3 Of course, for unspecified reasons (?) the

1 The WCC, established in 1948 at its 1st Assembly in Amsterdam, Netherlands, convened one more
assembly in Europe in 1968 (its 4 th in Uppsala, Sweden), two in North America (its 2nd in Evanston, United
States in 1954, and its 6th in Vancouver Canada in 1983), two in Africa (its 5th in Nairobi, Kenya in 1975,
and its 8th in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1998) one in Australia (its 7th in Canberra, Australia in 1991), one in
Latin America (its 9th in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006), and one, extremely important, in Asia (its 3 rd in
New Delhi, India in 1961).
2 According to Thomas E. FitzGerald, “even before the Edinburgh Conference, the Orthodox

Church of Constantinople, known as the Ecumenical Patriarchate, began a new series of discussions on
issues related to church divisions as early as the year 1902. On June 12 of that year, Patriarch Joachim III
addressed an encyclical…” (The Ecumenical Movement: An Introductory History, Praeger Publishers: Westport
CT 2004, p. 82).
3 Cf. “Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1920: ‘Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere’,”

Gennadios Limouris (ed.), Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism. Statements, Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical
Movement 1902-1992, WCC Publications: Geneva 1994, pp. 9-11. As interpreted by the first General
Secretary of the WCC and historian Visser't Hooft this important principle was one of the key
Orthodox interest in the course of time shifted to an exclusive quest for Church unity,
depriving the most urgent quest for the unity of humankind of the Orthodox energy and
theological reflection.4
This is what all Orthodox committed to ecumenism expected from the 10 th WCC
General Assembly. In one of the last Messages of the Primates of the Orthodox
Churches it was clearly stated that “Orthodox Christians share responsibility for the
contemporary crisis of this planet with other people, whether they are people of faith or
not, because they have tolerated and indiscriminately compromised on extreme human
choices, without credibly challenging these choices with the word of faith. Therefore,
they also have a major obligation to contribute to overcoming the divisions of the
world”. 5
These divisions, due to a certain extent to the failure or shortcomings of modernity
in justice, peace, the integrity of creation, and the world economy, is the result of
individualism, one of the pillars of modernity, and the ensuing absolute, unconditioned,
uncontrolled freedom of the individual in all aspects of life (sexual freedom, legally
protected freedom in accumulating wealth etc.), heralded as the new faith after the
Enlightenment. Looking at the ambivalence of modernity many Christian theologians
and activists (and many more faithful from other religions, I suppose) insist that there
must be a criterion to judge what should be saved from the values and achievements of
modernity and what should be overcome. For with the free-market economy, especially
in its latest neo-liberal form, the argument goes on, the power balance changed and
modernity from a midwife of human rights became their murderer. On the basis of the
old principles of modernity, the present world economic system is increasingly falling
back into totalitarian trends. Only if the world listen again carefully and gleans from the
shared wisdom of religions and other ages-old ethical traditions, can the positive values
of the “modern paradigm” be renewed and revitalized. It is for this reason that from all
religious quarters we speak of liberation of modernity.6
The most tangible aspect of this liberation has to do with the most revered in
modern culture Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In view of the last breakdown of the
International Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen few yew years ago, just to
mention one case, it became clear – at least in religious circles – that human rights are
awfully ineffective, if they are not accompanied by “human responsibilities”. The people
of faith nowadays believe that the values and principles that form part of a common
world ethic need not only be publicly declared, they also require an international legal
endorsement. One of the most fervent proponents within the ecumenical movement in
the Christian world for such a declaration of human responsibilities is the Russian
Orthodox Church.
The struggle, however, of Christians and faithful of other religions to promote a
Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is not just a diplomatic initiative aiming

requirements of the ecumenical movement (cf. Minutes and Reports of the Twelfth Meeting of the Central
Committee, Rhodes, Greece, August 19-27, Geneva 1959, pp. 95-97). Cf. also the § 12 Unitatis redintegratio, of the
Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism.
4 More on this in Stylianos Tsompanidis, “The Ecumenical Process of AGAPE (Alterative

Globalization Addressing People and Earth): An Orthodox Perspective,” in A Testimony to the Nations. A
Vigintennial Volume Offered to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Thessaloniki 2011, pp. 905-923. Also his
Orthodoxie und Ökumene. Gemeinsam auf dem Weg zu Gerechtigkeit, Frieden und Bewahrung der Schöpfung,
Münster/Hamburg /London 1999, especially chs. Ι,1.3, ΙΙ,2, and ΙΙ, 1.
5 § 6 of the Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, disseminated urbi et orbe on 12-12-2008 by the

Synaxis of the Primates of the independent (Autocephalous) Orthodox Churches, (the ultimate authority
of the Orthodox Church until the recent Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church).
6 This is the general message of an international, interdisciplinary, inter-faith project, which Orthodox

institutions participated in, analyzed in the recently published book by U. Duchrow - F. J. Hinkelammert,
Transcending Greedy Money. Interreligious Solidarity for Just Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2012.
at introducing in the world agenda moral values at the expense of the values of
modernity and the democratic achievements of the Enlightenment. It came out of
pressure by prophetic and charismatic figures and theological movements for social and
ecological justice from a faith perspective. “Economic justice” is a concept developed by
the churches and the ecumenical movement towards achievement of global justice
through advocating for equitable sharing of resources and power as essential
prerequisites for human development and ecological sustainability. Long before a
universal concern (political, scientific etc.) and advocacy for the dangerous effects of the
climate change was developed, theologians from all religious quarters put a critical
question to their own religious institutions: “Will the churches have the courage to
engage with the ‘values’ of a profit oriented way of life as a matter of faith, or will they
withdraw into the ‘private’ sphere? This is the question our churches must answer or
loose their very soul,” 7 declared a WCC consultation of Eastern and Central European
Churches on the problem of economic globalization at the dawn of the 3rd millennium,
and the Call for Action appeals for “building a common voice, fostering ecumenical
cooperation, and ensuring greater coherence for the realization of an Economy of Life
for all”.8
And the Orthodox Primates clearly affirmed that “the gap between rich and poor is
growing dramatically due to the financial crisis, usually the result of manic profiteering by
economic factors and corrupt financial activity, which, by lacking an anthropological
dimension and sensitivity, does not ultimately serve the real needs of mankind. A viable
economy is that which combines efficacy with justice and social solidarity”. 9
Therefore, the Christian Churches slowly, but steadily, started being concerned
about two interrelated aspects of globalization: ecology and economy, both stemming
from the Greek word oikos (household), and both carrying inherently the notion of
communion (koinonia), so dear and revered in all Christian denominations, but definitely
rooted deeper in the Orthodox tradition. Therefore, it did not came as a surprise the
immediate response by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and Patriarch Bartholomew in
particular, who has become known all over the world for his sensitivity for the
environment, God’s creation, and the universally appreciated activities, like the series of
the international ecological conferences, for which he was given the nickname the
“Green Patriarch.”
On a theoretical level, however, the most significant and crucial decision, shared
now by all religions, was the conviction that from a faith perspective economy and
ecology cannot be dealt with in isolation from each other. This interrelatedness is in line
with a similar conviction in the ecumenical movement, which for almost half a century
had being examining justice and peace as inseparable entities, even at a time when the
superpowers during the cold war stubbornly were prioritizing them in differing and
opposite ways.
In the wider ecumenical movement Christians, in cooperation with their partners in
the inter-faith dialogue, came to the conclusion that “various aspects of climate,
ecological, financial, and debt crises are mutually dependent and reinforce each other.
They cannot be treated separately anymore.” 10 The people of faith “discern the fatal
intertwining of the global financial, socio-economic, climate, and ecological crises
accompanied in many places of the world by the suffering of people and their struggle
for life. Far-reaching market liberalization, deregulation, and unrestrained privatisation of

7 Rogate Mshane, Globalization. WCC-JPC, presented in the Harare WCC Assembly. The Responsibility of
World Religions for Ecology, the World Economic System, and the International Law.
8 Economy of Life, Justice, and Peace for All: A Call for Action, § 23.
9 The Message of the Primates, § 8.
10 § 10 of the Economy of Life, Justice, and Peace for All: A Call for Action.
goods and services are exploiting the whole Creation and dismantling social programs
and services and opening up economies across borders to seemingly limitless growth of
production.”11
Therefore, the “Call for Action”, finalized at the “Global Forum and AGAPE
Celebration” in Bogor, Indonesia in June 2012, is not only addressed to the member-
churches of WCC, to the Christian religion worldwide, to the people of faith in general,
and to all partners from the secular establishment (political, social etc.), who share the
common ethical values; it is also an expectation of the Orthodox that the Busan General
Assembly must have fulfilled. Needless to say that faithful from all religions must join
forces to this end, and not fight one another. Hostility between them is a betrayal of
religion. And the battle for achieving a legally established Universal Declaration of
Human Responsibilities cannot be won unless it is fought by a united front of people of
faith. If all religious leaders and religious communities take actions similar to the
ecological initiatives of Patriarch Bartholomew, a new and better world will certainly rise.
And this is certainly the will of God!

b. With regard to the New Mission Statement we should remind ourselves that
Orthodoxy and Mission are two terms that at a first glance seem quite incompatible; at
least to the western historians of mission. 12 When in 1910 the historic gathering of
missionaries across denominational boundaries took place in Edinburgh, in order to
launch an inter-denominational missionary co-operation, Orthodoxy was completely
marginal. In their deliberations there were only references to the Oriental (sic) or Greek
churches, always within the framework of the western (mainly Protestant) mission. Even
in the following generation no article on the importance of mission was written by
Orthodox theologians.13 The initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the dawn of
the 20th century, which invited all Christians to address together the great challenges of
the 20th century, only later were brought into the Christian attention.
Even the encounter of the Orthodox with world Christian mission has not always
been a happy event. The missional dimension of the Orthodox Church was rediscovered
just more than a generation ago thanks to efforts and the theological arguments of the
former moderator of CWME, and now President of WCC and Primate of the Albanian
Orthodox Church, Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos). 14 The theological discussion
originally with Protestantism in the field mission within the framework of the activities
of WCC, and after Vatican II also with Catholicism, has awakened the importance of
mission for the Orthodox Church universal.
However, a significant contribution to the overall deliberations for an ecumenical
mission theology in the form of a mission statement had to wait till a missionary
awareness of the various autocephalous Orthodox Churches is accomplished. Gradually, in
addition to Archbishop Anastasios, other Orthodox theologians, who were actively
involved in one way or another with the ecumenical movement, and particularly with the
CWME of WCC, most notably in the case of the late Prof. Ion Bria, made significant

11 Ibid. This is something that was painfully felt in Greece by the majority of its citizens during the

recent economic crisis.

12 More in the collective volume I edited under the title Orthodox Perspectives on Mission, Regnum

Edinburgh Centenary Series 17, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies – Regnum Books: Oxford 2013, which
was actually prepared as an Orthodox input to the Busan WCC General Assembly.
13 More in Athanasios Papathanasiou, “Tradition as Impulse for Renewal and Witness: Introducing

Orthodox Missiology in the IRM,” International Review of Mission 100:2 (2011), pp. 203–215.
14 (Archbishop of Albania) Anastasios Yannoulatos, “Discovering the Orthodox Missionary Ethos,”

in Ion Bria (ed.), Martyria-Mission. The Witness of the Orthodox Churches, WCC Publications, Geneva 1980, pp.
20-29; also, in his Mission in Christ’s Way, HC Orthodox Press/WCC Publications: Brookline/Geneva 2010,
pp. 117-134.
contributions to the development of the contemporary mission theology. The martyria
dimension of mission in the place of an offensive and sometimes arrogant mission, the
Trinitarian importance of the missio dei theology, the liturgical aspect of the Christian
witness in the form of the Liturgy after the liturgy, are only few cases of the “Orthodox”
contribution to the new ecumenical understanding of mission in the 20th century.
Gleaning from the richness of the Christian tradition of the undivided Church, as well as
from the wealth of their missionary heritage (especially St. Cyril and Methodius’
evangelization of the Slavs, and of Europe in general) the Orthodox not only explained
their different – and to a certain extent difficult to understand by western missiologists
and missionaries – approach to mission; they also became invaluable players in the field
of contemporary Christian missiology.
During the last 50 years, i.e. from the time of the full integration into the WCC (and
the overall ecumenical movement) of all the Orthodox Churches, as well as of the
International Missionary Council (IMC), in the 3rd General Assembly of WCC in New
Delhi, there have been three statements on mission and evangelism: The 1982 “Mission
and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation”, which was officially approved by the Central
Committee of WCC, the 2000 “Mission and Evangelism in Unity”, adopted by CWME as a
Study Document, and the new mission statement, entitled “Together Towards Life: Mission
and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes”, unanimously approved by the WCC Central
Committee held in Crete, Greece on 5 September 2012.
The 1982 mission statement is a traditional mission statement, reflecting the mostly
Protestant understanding of mission, and despite its translation among other languages
also into Greek, 15 was never embraced and wholeheartedly followed by Orthodox
missionaries and missiologists, obviously because the Orthodox did not feel at home
with its theological arguments or the overall aura. This became quite evident in the
attempt to update it with strong Orthodox theological terminology (and of course
substantial Orthodox contribution) in the 2000 Mission and Evangelism in Unity statement,
which met with some criticism from the Protestant (and particularly Evangelical)
missiologists. This was the reason why it never acquired a universal acceptance and
official approval by the entire WCC in the form of a decision by its Central Committee.
Both the 1982 and the 2000 mission statements attempted to bring into actuality the
traditional (western and eastern respectively) understanding of mission. However, they
both came short with regard to the adaptation to the rapidly changing landscapes. The
third millennium required concrete affirmations in the emerging new challenges,
especially with regard to the growing pluralistic situation and the immoral world
economic system, and a renewed philosophy and language. In addition, the widening of
the spectrum of Christian missionaries, ranging from the historically traditional Churches
(Orthodox and Catholic), the traditional mainstream Protestant ecclesial communities, to
the new vibrant and charismatic ones (evangelical and Pentecostal), required a broader
appeal of the statement, even wider than WCC member churches and affiliated mission
agencies, so that all Christian can commit themselves together to fullness of life for all,
led by the God of Life! It is in this situation that the most recent mission statement,
“Together towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes”, came out.
Of course, any new statement concerning the Christian imperative of mission would
be wholeheartedly welcome from an Orthodox perspective. This one, however, seems in
addition to fulfil some of the expectations of the Orthodox, especially in areas of crucial
theological importance. And first of all, its Trinitarian, i.e. Pneumatological, basis (§ 1ff.).
The Orthodox always insist that all fundamental aspects of Christian theology, creation
of the entire cosmos by God, redemption in Christ and salvation through the Church,
15 Cf. I. Bria-Petros Vassiliadis, Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Μαρτυρία, EKO 1 Tertios Press: Katerini Greece

1989, pp. 177-200.

but beyond her historic boundaries in the power of the Holy Spirit, etc., are all conceived
as the natural consequence of the inner dynamics of the Triune God, i.e. of the
communion and love that exists within the Holy Trinity. Applied to mission, this
Trinitarian basis can have tremendous effect in helping the Christian missionaries to
avoid imperialistic or confessionalistic attitudes. “The Trinitarian theology points to the
fact that God's involvement in history aims at drawing humanity and creation in general
into this communion with God's very life. The implications of this assertion for
understanding mission are very important: mission does not aim primarily at the
propagation or transmission of intellectual convictions, doctrines, moral commands etc.,
but at the transmission of the life of communion that exists in God”. 16
One could also add some further points: the ecclesial dimension of mission, the
implicit liturgical aspect (although not fully articulated in the direction of the Eucharistic
approach to mission, especially in view of the affirmation in § 17), the explicit
environmental and inter-faith consequences of an authentic Christian witness, and the
clear connection between mission and unity, 17 are all profound theological aspects, very
familiar to the Orthodox tradition The importance of the inter-faith dialogue (instead of
an aggressive and triumphant mission), on the basis of the economy of the Spirit (side by
side, of course, with the economy of the Word/Christ), 18 and the integrity of creation
with the ensuing environmental missional ethos,19 must certainly please not only the
Orthodox missiologists, but also the theologians engaged in the quest for the visible unity
of the Church of Christ. To my knowledge, it is for the first time that a mission statement
makes such a strong and direct appeal: “We are called to participate in God’s mission
beyond our human-centred goals. God’s mission is to all life and we have to both
acknowledge it and serve it in new ways of mission. We pray for repentance and
forgiveness, but we also call for action now. Mission has creation at its heart” ( § 105).
The strong spiritual dimension that permeates the whole document is yet another
positive point the Orthodox can immediately endorse. “Authentic Christian witness is not
only in what we do in mission but how we live out our mission. The church in mission can
only be sustained by spiritualities deeply rooted in the Trinity’s communion of love” (§
29). Closely connected is also the spirit of humility and the imperative of repentance in
mission. The cross, says the document, “calls for repentance in light of misuse of power
and use of the wrong kind of power in mission and in the church” (§ 33). For
generations, even centuries, the triumphant character in doing mission overwhelmed the
humble quintessence of the Christian message and attitude, the Pauline affirmation that
“God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who
believe” (1 Cor 1:21).
This brings us to the heart of the new mission statement, namely that in the 3 rd
millennium Christian mission, in addition to the proclamation of the Good News,
should address the structural sin, expressed in the intertwined contemporary crises, the
economic and environmental, from the perspective of the marginalized (§ 36ff.):
“Christians are called to acknowledge the sinful nature of all forms of discrimination and
transform unjust structures” (§ 49), and that “all missional activity must…safeguard the
sacred worth of every human being and of the earth” (§ 42).

16 I. Bria (ed.), Go Forth in Peace. Orthodox Perspectives on Mission, Geneva 1985, p. 3.

17 “Practically, as well as theologically, mission and unity belong together” (§ 60)
18 (Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon) Georges Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralistic World: The

Economy of the Holy Spirit,” The Ecumenical Review 23 (1971), pp. 118-128.
19 (Ecumenical Patriarch) Bartholonew Archontonis, Encountering the Mystery. Understanding Orthodox

Christianity Today, Doublay: New York/London/Toronto/Sydnay Auckland 2008. His initiatives became
almost characteristic of the Orthodox theology, and resulted in His All-Holiness’ becoming known as the
“Green Patriarch”.
 The 3rd millennium, which all Christians are called to witness to the Gospel in, is
characterized by a deep and prolonged crisis, caused by the world economic system; and
their mission cannot be authentically pursued without addressing this structural evil. In
this respect the 2012 AGAPE “Call for Action” is clearly echoed in one of the final
affirmations: “Economic globalization has effectively supplanted the God of life with
mammon, the god of free-market capitalism that claims the power to save the world
through the accumulation of undue wealth and prosperity. Mission in this context needs
to be counter-cultural, offering alternatives to such idolatrous visions because mission
belongs to the God of life, justice and peace and not to this false god who brings misery
and suffering to people and nature” (§ 108).
Such a strongly socially-oriented missionary appeal, of course, is not something new
in the recent history of the missionary branch of the WCC. Some forty years ago, and
only in the second decade after the integration of the IMC in the WCC, it was one of the
reasons that caused a dramatic split in the world missionary Christian movement with
the creation of the “evangelical” Lausanne movement. This time, however, the profound
biblical, theological and spiritual argumentation can hardly provide any reasonable excuse
for theological disagreement on the part of the evangelicals or the Pentecostals. It may
not be accidental that both these Christian communities the Orthodox are engaged in a
very constructive theological dialogue, not to mention, of course, that since the time of
the 2005 Athens world mission conference (and also in the 2010 Edinburgh centenary
celebrations) they were central players.