Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Regnum Studies in Mission are born from the lived experience o f Christians
and Christian communities in mission, especially but not solely in the fast
growing churches among the poor o f the world. These churches have more to
tell than stories o f growth. They are making significant impacts on their
cultures in the cause o f Christ. They are producing ‘cultural products’ which
express the reality o f Christian faith, hope and love in their societies.
Regnum Studies in M ission are the fruit often o f rigorous research to the
highest international standards and always o f authentic Christian engagement in
the transformation o f people and societies. And these are for the world. The
formation of Christian theology, missiology and practice in the twenty-first
century will depend to a great extent on the active participation o f growing
churches contributing biblical and culturally appropriate expressions of
Christian practice to inform World Christianity.
Series Editors
Theological Education
and Theology of Life
Transformative Christian Leadership
in the Twenty “First Century
09 08 07 06 05 04 03 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN: 978-1-911372-00-4
MIX
Paper from
responsible sources
FSC FSC® C 013056
Contents
Acknowledgements ix
Foreword
R udolf von Sinner xi
Introduction
Uta Andrée, Atola Longkumer, PoHo Huang 1
Part 1: Foundations
Finding Common Ground: The Theology of Life, Decade to
Overcome Violence, and Theological Education
Rodney L. Petersen 15
Part III:
Theological Education and Theology of Life in C ontexts
Doing Asian Theologies in the Context of God’s Oikos
Huang Po Ho 175
Christian Mission and Education in China:
The Chinazation of Christianity
Theresa C. Carino 182
Contributors 383
Select Bibliography 289
Index 293
New W ine into O ld W ineskins?:
O rthodox T heology of M ission Facing
the C hallenges of a G lobal W orld *
Pantelis Kalaitzidis
* The initial version of this paper was presented in Volos Academy’s Workshop
“Orthodox Theology of Mission and the Global Demand for Justice and Peace”,
taken place in the framework of the WCC 10th General Assembly, Busan, Korea,
November 4, 2013.
1 Dietrich Wemer, “The Unfinished Agenda of Ecumenical Theological Education
and the Future of World Christianity”, Theological Education in World
Christianity: Ecumenical Perspectives and Future Priorities (Kway, Tainan,
Taiwan: Programme for Theology and Cultures in Asia, 2011), 249.
2 Dietrich Wemer, “Ecumenical-Theological Education as a Strategic Priority for
World Christianity in the 21st Century”, in Wati Longchar, Mohan Larbeer (eds),
Communion on the Move: Towards a Relevant Theological Education. Essays in
Honour o f Bishop John Sadananda (Bangalore: BTESSC, 2015), 90.
’ Dietrich Werner, “The Unfinished Agenda of Ecumenical Theological Education”,
250.
120 Theological Education and Theology o f Life
possible to exaggerate the debt of gratitude which is due to them for their
labours in education, nor can it be doubted how important a part of education
has played in the process of evangelization.”4
Edinburgh 1910 highlighted also, among others, the importance and
relevance o f missionary education. This is why it “called for a massive
quality improvement in training o f missionaries which according to the
Report o f Commission V should be drastically upgraded in academic level
and enlarged in terms o f both a) language studies, b) history o f religions
and sociology o f mission territories and c) in general principles of
missionary work.”5
Edinburgh 1910 also closely linked mission studies and theological
education with ecumenical openness and the overcoming of confessional
divisions, clearly calling to move “beyond denominational lines in
theological education and promoting the establishment o f centralized
mission colleges jointly supported by different denominations and mission
agencies.” Following this suggestion, “theological education of
missionaries should take place mainly in ‘central missionary colleges’ (not
as before just in regional denominational mission seminaries) which were
to be foreseen in places like Shanghai, Madras, Calcutta, Beirut and Cairo
and should be open to missionaries o f all Christian denominations.”
According to Dietrich Werner whose argument I follow,
“these plans were visionary and revolutionary in their understanding of
Christian education and theological education in particular - an early
foretaste of the concept of ecumenical theological education and ecumenical
learning which was developed decades later.”6
One o f the suggestions and instructions o f Edinburgh 1910, o f crucial
and decisive importance for our discussion, was the one referring to the
need o f providing theological and Christian education in vernacular
languages. Following the Report o f Commission 111: “In the work of
training the native Christian Churches, and in particular those who are to be
the leaders o f the Churches, the greatest possible care will have to be taken
to avoid the risk o f denationalizing those who are being trained. In
particular, we lay the greatest emphasis on the importance o f giving
religious teaching, not only o f the elementary kind, but as far as possible
throughout, in the vernacular. We feel certain that those o f our witnesses
are right who believe that religion can only really be acclimatized in the
reflected in the new WCC mission and evangelism statement. Together Towards
Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes, prepared by the
Commission on World Mission and Evangelism. See Jooseop Keum (ed), Together
Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 2013).
12 Georges Florovsky, “The Boundaries of the Church”, in Ecumenism 1: A
Doctrinal Approach, volume thirteen in the Collected Works of G. Florovsky
(Vaduz, Europa/Belmont, MA: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), 36-45; idem, “The
Limits of the Church”, Church Quarterly Review, 1933, 117-131; idem, “The
Doctrine of the Church and the Ecumenical Problem”, The Ecumenical Review, 2-3
(1950), 152-161; Georges Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralistic World - The
Economy of the Holy Spirit”, The Ecumenical Review, 23.2 (1971), 118-128; the
same paper is also published in Constantin G. Patelos (ed). The Orthodox Church in
the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements 1902-1975 (Geneva: World
Council of Churches, 1978), 297-307; idem, “An Orthodox Perspective of Inter-
Religious Dialogue”, Current Dialogue, 19 (1991), 45-64; Ioannis Karmiris, “The
Universality of the Salvation in Christ”, Theologia, 51 (1980), 645-691, and 52
(1981), 14-45 [in Greek]; idem, The Salvation o f the People o f God Outside the
Church (Athens, 1982) [in Greek]; Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), “A
Theological Approach to Understanding Other Religions”, Facing the World:
Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns, transi. Pavlos Gottfried
(Crestwood, NY / Geneva: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press / WCC Publications,
2003), 127-153; Kallistos Ware, “’The Light that Enlightens Everyone’: The
Knowledge of God among non-Christians’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review,
44 (1999), 557-584; loan Sauca, “The Church Beyond our Boundaries / The
Ecumenical Vocation of Orthodoxy”, The Ecumenical Review, 56.2 (2004), 211-
225; Petros Vassiliadis, “The Eucharist as an Inclusive and Unifying Element in the
New Testament Ecclessiology”, in A. Alexeev-Ch. Karakolis-U. Luz (eds), Einheit
der Kirche im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 121-145; idem,
“Interfaith dialogue as a Missiological Issue: Reconciliation as a New Mission
Paradigm”, in Philia and Koinonia: Festschrift in Honor o f Professor Gregorios
Ziakas (Thessaloniki: Vanias Publications, 2008), 647-662; idem, “The Missionary
Implications of St. Paul’s Eucharistic Inclusiveness”, in Nicolae Moçoiu (ed), The
Relevance o f Reverend Professor Ion Bria’s Work for Contemporary Society and
for the Life o f the Church. New Directions in the Research o f Church Doctrine,
Mission, and Unity (Sibiu: Editura Universitâ(.ii, ‘Lucian Blaga’), 2010, 123-134;
Athanasios N. Papathanasiou, “If I cross the boundaries, you are there! An
affirmation of God’s action outside the canonical boundaries of the Church”,
Communio Viatorurn, 53.3 (2011 ), 40-55; Emmanuel Clapsis, “The Boundaries of
the Church: An Orthodox Debate”, Orthodoxy in Conversation: Orthodox
Ecumenical Engagements (Geneva/Brookline, MA: WCC Publications/Holy Cross
Orthodox Press), 2000, 114-126; idem, “Interreligious Dialogue and Universal
Salvation”, Theologia, 84 (2013), 81-104 [in Greek]; Athanasios Vletsis, “Return to
Orthodoxy: What is the Model of Church’s Unity for the Orthodox Church?”, in
124 Theological Education and Theology o f Life
17 Ion Bria (ed.). Go Forth in Peace, 66; Emmanuel Clapsis, “The Eucharist as
Missionary Event in a Suffering World”, Orthodoxy in Conversation: Orthodox
Ecumenical Engagements, 191-197.
18 Cf. Nikos A. Nissiotis, “The Ecclesiological Foundation of Mission from the
Orthodox Point of View”, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 7 (1961-62),
22-52; idem, “The Witness and the Service of the Eastern Orthodoxy to the One and
Undivided Church”, The Ecumenical Review, 14 (1962), 192-202; idem, “La
présence dynamique et la mission de l’Eglise locale dans le monde d’aujourd’hui”,
in Eglise locale et église universelle, Chambésy: Les éditions du Centre orthodoxe,
1981,309-327.
19 Elias Voulgarakis, “Mission and Unity from the Theological Point of View”,
IRM, 54 (1965), 298-307; idem, The Greek Orthodox Missionary Philotheos: The
First Modern Greek Mission Novel, reprint from ‘Porefthentes-Go Ye’ (Athens,
1970); idem, “Missionsangaben in den Briefen der Asketen Barsanuphius und
Johannes. Einleitende Gedanken und eine Untersuchung”, in Anastasios Kallis (ed),
Philoxenia: Prof Dr. Bernhard Kotting gewidmet von semen Schiilern (Münster:
Aschendorff, 1980), 281-307; idem, “The Church of Greece”, in Ion Bria (ed),
Martyria/Mission: The Witness o f the Orthodox Churches Today (Geneva: WCC,
1980), 115-121; idem, “A Lesson in Evangelism: The Lives of Cyril and
Methodius”, IRM, 74 (1985), 230-236; “Orthodox Mission”, in Karl Müller, Theo
Sundermeier, Stephen B. Bevans, Richard H. Bliese (eds), Dictionary o f Mission:
Theology, History, Perspectives (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998), 334-338;
idem, Mission: Paths and Structures (Athens, Armos Publications, 1989), 33-36 [in
Greek].
20 Archbishop Aram Keshishian, Orthodox Perspectives on Mission (Oxford:
Regnum Lynx, 1992).
21 Metropolitan Mar Ostathios, “Worship, Mission, Unity - These Three. Response
to Bishop Mortimer Arias”, IRM, 65 (1976), 41-42; idem, “Divine Sharing: Shape
of Mission for the Future”, IRM, 76 (1987), 18-19; idem, “Kingdom of God and
Identification with the Poor”, IRM, 69 (1980), 503-507; idem, “Conviction of Truth
and Tolerance of Love”, IRM, 74 (1985), 490-496; idem, “Divine Sharing: Shape of
Mission for the Future”, IRM, 76 (1987), 16-20.
New Wine into Old Wineskins? 127
22 Ion Bria (ed), Go Forth in Peace, 64-65: “Orthodoxy is proud of its foreign
missionary tradition that has not been carried out in a spirit of colonialism, but
rather with the intent of adapting the faith to the manners, language, traditions and
life-styles of the people to whom it brings the gospel. Wherever Orthodoxy is now
acti ve in such mission it must retain and expand that method.”
23 Cf. Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Mission in Christ's Way, 193-195;
Dimitri Obolensky, “Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Apostles of the Slavs”, St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, 7 (1963), 3-13; Luke Alexander Veronis,
Missionaries, Monks and Martyrs: Making Disciples o f All Nations (Light and Life
Publishing, 1994), 28-44. Cf. Ion Bria (ed), Go Forth in Peace, 64-68.
24 James J. Stamoolis, Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 1986), 62.
25 James Stamoolis, Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today, 61. Cf.
Papathanasiou, “The ‘Generation o f ’60s’: Suspicion, Creativity, Embarrassment”,
128 Theological Education and Theology o f Life
The same example and missionary method was later adopted by the
Russian apostles who were inspired by the Orthodox principles o f
Byzantine missionaries, such as Stephen o f Perm (1340-1396), who worked
with the Zyrian people o f northwest Siberia; St. Tryphon of Novgorod
(+1583), who brought the Gospel to the Laps; Bishop Philotheos of
Tobolsk, the “Apostle to Siberia” (+1727), who carried out missionary
work among the pagan tribes in the remote areas o f Siberia; St. Herman of
Alaska (1756-1837), who approached with love and respect the native
Alaskans, and their culture and life-style, and is now considered by many
as the patron saint o f Orthodoxy in North America; the monk Macarios
Gloukharev (1792-1847), the Apostle to the warlike tribes o f the Altai
mountain range; Bishop innocent Veniaminov (1797-1878), who
accomplished missionary work among the Aleutians, the Eskimos, and
other Alaskan tribes, before he later become Metropolitan o f Moscow and
all Russia; the merchant Sidenikoff among the Samoyeds; the linguist and
theologian Nicholas 11minsky, who introduced new methods o f translation
and missionary work among the Tartars; Bishop Innokentiy Figurovsky, the
Apostle to China, who led the Russian Orthodox Mission in China from
1896 to 1931, and was the ruling bishop o f Beijing from 1902 to 1931 ;
Archbishop Nikolai Kasatkin (1836-1912), the Apostle to Japan, who did
every possible effort in order to adopt Japanese way o f life and cultural
tradition, and worked hardly not only for evangelization, but also for the
indigenization o f the Orthodox Church in Japan.26
The same missionary ethos and practice often (but not always)
characterized 20th century Orthodox apostles, eminently exemplified by
Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos) o f Albania (born in 1929), who
initially worked (in the ’70s and ’80s) as missionary in Africa and as
Professor at the Faculty o f Theology, at Athens University, and later (after
1992) as Exarch and Archbishop o f the Orthodox Church in Albania; or
Metropolitan Sotirios (Trampas) o f Pissidia (born in 1929), the founder and
op. cit., 384-386; idem, “Slanted Eyes, Yet Wide Open. The Mission of the Church
in Japan”, Synaxi, issue 131, 2014, 80-87 [in Greek].
26 Cf. Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Mission in Christ’s Way, 196-198;
Luke Alexander Veronis, Missionaries, Monks and Martyrs: Making Disciples o f
All Nations (Light and Life Publishing, 1994), 45-50; 59-92; Nikita Struve,
“Macaire Goukharev, a Prophet of Orthodox Mission”, I RM 54 (1965), 308-314;
Sister Thais, “Archimandrite Macarios: Founder of the Altai Mission in Siberia”,
Orthodox Alaska, 4 (1974); Paul D. Garrett, St. Innocent, Apostle to America
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979); Barbara S. Smith,
Orthodoxy and Native Americans: The Alaskan Mission (Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980); J. J. Oleksa, “Orthodoxy in Alaska. The Spiritual
History of the Kodiak Aleut People”, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 25
(1981), 3-19; Michael Oleksa, Alaskan Missionary Spirituality (New York: Paulist
Press, 1987); idem, Orthodox Alaska (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1993); F.A. Golder, Father Herman, Alaska’s Saint (San Francisco: St.
Herman’s Brotherhood, 2004).
New Wine into Old Wineskins? 129
organizer in recent times o f the Orthodox Church in Korea; or even the late
Athonite Hieromonk Cosmas Grigoriatis (1942-1989), who hardly worked
as missionary in Zaire, and ministered to the spiritual and basic material
needs o f Zaire’s people, leaving at the end his bones amongst the natives.
As rightly summarized by a leading Orthodox theologian o f mission, the
late Fr. Ion Bria, the Eastern Orthodox missionary ethos and practice,
Whether systematically planned or spontaneously improvised, Orthodox
missions were generally based on the attempt to make Scripture and liturgy
immediately acceptable to the new Christians, by having them translated into
their native tongue and by having a native clergy assume leadership in the
“young churches.” The greatest historical instance of this approach is that of
Sts. Cyril and Methodius in their mission among the Slavs. Their example
was followed up to modern times (St. Nicholas of Japan). In the examples
mentioned above, however, indigen ization was never seen as an end in itself;
concern was also given to cultural continuity between the mother church and
the daughter churches (liturgy, art, music, etc.) which preserved the sense of
the universal unity of the church.27
Being for centuries the victim o f both the Western Christian
aggressiveness seeking dominion, and the Muslim (Arab first, later
Ottoman Turkish) conquest,28 Eastern Christianity in general was usually
ranked to the side o f the oppressed, enjoying a moral prestige among the
colonized and oppressed peoples o f the global south and the third world. In
this respect, it suffices to recall, as an example, the unprecedented radiance
and popularity o f Archbishop Macarius III of Cyprus to the African peoples
o f all faiths, especially in Kenya29 or the way in which the establishment of
those Orthodox missions that began before 1950 were not regarded as
“mainstream” by the established Roman Catholic and Protestant missions,
because they were identified with African independent church movements,
which at that time were regarded by the Western churches as a problem for
mission rather than a form of mission. The identification of Orthodoxy with
the struggle against colonialism was also an embarrassment at that time. One
Kenyan, writing of such attitudes, referred to “those who in their calculated
ignorance misinterpret African-Christian-Orthodoxy as ‘paganism’.’”2
The remarkable active medical, social and philanthropic activity of
Orthodox missionary centers, and their important contribution to the
economic development, and social progress into the context under
discussion, is another positive feature which has to be ascribed to the
genuine Orthodox mission and witness o f 20th century.33
However, this is not to praise Orthodox mission, but rather to raise
questions and define related problems, as well as to identify a decisive step
towards the Orthodox Christian engagement in the global demand for
justice and peace, issues which in many regards refer to the question of
mission, as well as to the pilgrim o f justice and peace which was at the core
of the 10th WCC General Assem bly’s agenda in Busan, Korea.34 It seems
therefore that, despite these achievements and positive theological
presuppositions, Orthodox mission did not considerably progress during the
20th century, while nowadays is faced with difficulties and challenges to
which it is not always ready to address in a proper way.
In our rapidly changing world, a major recent development has been the
progressive move o f Christianity from the North (mainly Europe, and the
Americas), to the Global South (mainly Asia, Africa, and Latin America). It
seems like Christianity is departing from the secularized Europe, and even
from the more religious America, to the previously missionary continents
of the South, while its center o f gravity is also similarly moves from the
traditional institutional churches (like the Roman Catholic Church or even
the Eastern Orthodox Church), to the new Protestant Evangelical,
Pentecostal churches or charismatic congregations.
and will at the same time affect the presence and dynamic o f the Orthodox
Church both in the North, and the Global South. In fact, apart from some
small in size, but very dynamic Orthodox missionary communities mainly
in Africa and Asia, there is a very thin Orthodox presence in these
continents. Orthodoxy is almost absent from this religious cosmogony and
seems unable to play any role in the emergence and shaping of this non-
Western Christianity. 37 Paradoxically enough, despite its theological,
cultural, and historical rivalry with the Christian West, and its “diaspora”
now spread and rooted all over the world, East and West, North and South,
Orthodoxy is still perceived in the global scale as and remains a Western
reality and phenomenon.
In order to throw more light and clarity, take the example o f Korea,
where the 10th WCC General Assembly was hosted. Personally I very much
appreciate, value, and respect the missionary, pastoral, and theological
work o f both the founder and organizer in recent times o f the Orthodox
mission in Korea, and its first Orthodox Metropolitan, His Eminence
Sotirios o f Pissidia, as well as its successor and distinguished hierarch, His
Eminence Metropolitan Ambrosius o f Korea, who organized a public event
sponsored by the Orthodox Metropolis o f Korea and the local Orthodox
Parish in Busan. Therefore, the intention in what follows is not critique
against the very esteemed hierarchs, but my aim is primarily to define a
wider problem. Regarding the Orthodox presence in Korea, I will repeat for
the purposes o f our discussion what His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios
Yannoulatos o f Albania said in 1989, when he was wondering “why, while
the Orthodox mission began almost simultaneously with the Protestant
mission in Korea, do the Protestants in that country today number five and
one-half million and the Orthodox a mere two thousand?”38 According to
the more updated statistic data o f the L ’Atlas des religions (2007),
Protestants number more than 20,000,000 making up more than 40% o f the
total population o f the country, while the Orthodox continue to number
about 2,000, and as a result, are not counted in the statistics.39 But
Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos does not limit his crucial questions
regarding Orthodox mission only to the Korean case, but also to other
countries too. As he notes:
crucial issues. 1 will therefore list below some possible reasons, but 1 do not
in any case claim to have the final and concluding word.
a) Orthodoxy seems to be so closely identified with Byzantium that is
eventually able to follow only the Byzantine model in every domain and
aspect o f church life (theology, liturgy, preaching, administration, church
design, iconography, singing, etc.). This precise model, however, is not
necessarily the one which fits with the expectations o f the people of Global
South, who are situated in a completely different historical background, and
cultural context. Historical Orthodoxy seems then to be trapped in
Byzantium, and to this regard the greatest challenge for Orthodoxy today is
to overcome this historical and cultural fixation, by discerning its mission
to today’s world, without the continuous and exclusive reference to this
formative historical period o f the church. Yet Orthodoxy, both Greek
speaking and non-Greek-speaking (although to different extent), draws its
legitimacy from Byzantium and all its points o f references - i.e., the
sources o f its liturgical tradition, the rhetorical forms o f its kerygma, and
the theology o f the Fathers and the Councils - trace back to Byzantium.42
This critique might appear to some people as a radical one, but in reality it
is in line with the theology and the practice o f the Orthodox mission,43 as
well as the theological approach o f the relationship o f the Gospel with the
cultures.44 Sts. Herman and St Innocentius o f Alaska for instance - to recall
a quite recent example o f Orthodox mission, beyond the well-known
paradigm o f Sts. Cyril and M ethodius - when they moved to that country,
they did not bring with them the cultural elements o f their homeland, nor
they preached the Russian culture or “Russian Orthodoxy,” but were
adjusted to the cultural elements o f the local Alaskan context.45 From this
perspective, the critical remarks o f the young African Orthodox
missiologist Cosmas (John) Ngige Njoroge in relation to the transfer of
elements o f Byzantine liturgical and ecclesiastical tradition to the African
context, and the need for inculturation o f Orthodoxy in Africa are o f great
relevance for our discussion. As he put it:
We cannot stand as an obstacle to the work of the Holy Spirit who blows
where he likes, transforming people, cultures and creation anew, bringing
them into the body of Christ. Every culture in this world is God’s creation.
Orthodox, while Africa is famous for its very rich and various musical
traditions. The same could be said regarding the import in sub-Saharan
settings o f Greek or Mediterranean wine, made from grapes, for the
celebration o f Eucharist, and the refusal to accept as Eucharistic gifts local
products like the palm wine.49 By doing so, it is like to annul in practice the
theology o f Incarnation and the possibility for the eternal truth o f God to be
incarnate in every place and culture, in every time and historical period. In
the words o f M etropolitan Alexander o f Nigeria o f the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate o f Alexandria,
But now our turn has come to preach to our people, those both near and far
from the Truth. In order for us to manifest the Church, here and now, within
the parameters of our own culture - that is, the continuing incarnation of God,
and the assumption of the created into the uncreated’s manner (tropos) of
existence. If the Church, as we believe, is the Body of Christ or Christ
extended through the ages, this means that Christ is present in history, that He
has flesh; “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14). Christ
Himself wants “to fully realize the mystery of His incarnation always and
everywhere” (Maximus the Confessor, PG 91 1084 C-D). If we accept the
truth of these words, then we are led, ineluctably, to the conclusion that the
Truth and the Life, Christ and His Church, must be clothed at every moment
in the cultural flesh of the world, the characteristics of each people. The flame
of Pentecost, which did away with linguistic, national, and cultural barriers,
continues to bum. Every moment, every minute is a Pentecost. It is a new
descent of the Holy Spirit, which does not belong exclusively to one culture
and one people and their expressions.50
c) In order to meet this demanding challenge, Eastern Orthodoxy has to
free itself from another fixation: the almost exclusive recourse to the
ontological language exemplified by contemporary Orthodox theologians,
clerics, and some missionaries in their theology and preaching, even when
they come to Global South, where most o f the people and languages are
completely devoid, o f the use, or the very concept of “being,” or even the
verb to be. The adoption o f the ontological language by Christian theology
was a great achievement realized mainly thanks to the efforts o f the great
church Fathers, especially the Cappadocians o f the fourth century, who
were the pioneers o f the encounter between Christianity and Hellenism, and
o f the Christianization o f the Hellenistic philosophic categories, without of
course neglecting the important contribution o f Fathers o f previous period -
mainly the apologists and Irenaeus o f Lyons.51 It seems that Eastern
Orthodox Christianity today does not have any mission, primarily because it
has been crushed by national ideas and has dedicated itself to every kind of
national struggle. National claims have absorbed all its energies and nothing
has been left for the spread of the Gospel. Not only has the nationalistic
ideology, which all the Orthodox Churches have espoused, brought them into
conflict among themselves; it has also hindered any permanent and
coordinated Orthodox missionary collaboration (of the sort which the
Protestants have broadly achieved). Moreover, it has distorted the very
evangelic nature of their missionary enterprise, wherever and however faintly
this is attested, and has often turned that enterprise into little more than
exporting nationalism.
Orthodox Christians have not been mission-conscious. They are willing to
respond to any national call, even the most outrageous, but do not have ears
to hear the command of the risen Christ: “Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that 1 have commanded you”,
perhaps because they do not have faith in His assurance: “And remember, I
am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt 28:12-20). We believe that
the command to engage in missionary witness is relevant only to the history
of the early Church, not to its present condition each time. We are more
moved by the national anthem or the flag than by the Cross of Christ and His
Gospel. Now we have to pay the price. What do I mean? Today, when
Christianity is collapsing in Europe and is moving elsewhere, the shrinking of
Orthodoxy to the geographical bounds of the European continent will, sooner
or later (probably sooner than later, when the dynamic of re-evangelizing the
former Communist countries is exhausted), result in a historic decay.57
e) If religious nationalism is one o f the main reasons for Orthodox
inertia regarding mission, it is not the only one. As Valentin Kozhuharov
notes, Orthodox churches do lack mission (with one significant exception,
according to him, the Russian Orthodox Church),58 and without any
exception this time, do lack mission awareness, annulling eventually the
previous optimistic statement. Thus, besides the reasons o f the thin and
limited Orthodox activity in mission mentioned above, Kozhuharov lists
and proposes nine points which could improve Orthodox awareness in the
field o f mission, and which could be summarized as follows: i) Awareness
o f Jesus’ Great Commission; ii) Awareness o f the nature o f the church and
its missionary character; iii) Awareness o f the history o f the church (and its
mission throughout history); iv) Awareness o f the apostles’ mission (and of
the apostolic succession); v) Awareness o f missio Dei; vi) Awareness of
Christian theology and Christian mission research; vii) Awareness o f the
“believers’ common work” (the “leitourgia”) and the missionary character
o f liturgy; viii) Awareness o f the difference between “us” and the “other;”
and Earth), acting and struggling at the ecumenical level against global
capitalism.62 But on the other hand, I have always supported the idea that
we cannot bypass today’s world, and the on-going reality o f a global world
beyond borders and national limitations, which in these particular aspects
echoes very much the wider socio-cultural context in which the Gospel was
originally preached, and Christianity prevailed. It is one thing to struggle in
changing the negative effects o f globalization, to go against the injustice
and economic exploitation at the global level, and it is another thing to
simply refuse the reality o f globalization, and the world in which we live.
From an Orthodox point o f view, a very balanced approach to this crucial
issue o f globalization has been offered by Archbishop Anastasios
(Yannoulatos) o f Tirana and all Albania, in which His Beatitude discusses
the challenges o f universalism and the dangers o f globalization with
theological and biblical arguments and criteria.63
g) Orthodoxy is therefore mainly identified with spirituality, accepting
for itself to be relegated to the realm o f mysticism and the exotic or
mystical version o f Christianity,64 thus self-resigning from a catholic,
holistic, and inclusive vision of the world and its salvation. In my view,
what is at stake here is not a separation or dissociation of spirituality from
65 Cf. Papathanasiou, The Clash with the Null: Some Sips o f Political Theology
(Athens: Armos Publications, 2015), 172-182 [in Greek].
66 Métropolite Georges Khodr, “Eucharistie et libération”, Service Orthodoxe de
Presse (SOP), issue 338, mai 2009, and Suppléments 330.A. Cf. idem, L'appel de
l'Esprit. Eglise et société, textes choisis et mis en forme par Maxime Egger,
traductions de l’arabe par Raymond Rizk, Georges Ghandour, Youakim Moubarac,
A. Manzi et Adeline Asfour (Paris/Pully: Cerf/Le sel de la terre, 2001).
67 Papathanasiou, “Liberation Perspectives in Patristic Thought. An Orthodox
Approach”, in Academic Yearbook o f the Graduated Program ‘Studies in Orthodox
Theology', Vacuity oj Human Sciences, Hellenic Open University, vol. 2 (Patras,
2011 ). 422-423.432: idem. ' . ’· ly:
Vi ' Ê *!.>> '< U ' < •'iii’ T . ' b " U> a A I Λ ί'Ί ·_Η .·! i h U <; t a * , .· Κ·ί'! iCs l* G \
. Geneva: YYCC :■ ■ ■.
! S A >< >.'t Hi < h ‘• i i ' l · ’ ,’ ΐ ϋ ' ί ί Η ί ί ι 1 i " ! 1* i ·>} l e i ( , <0 n s y
* \ *r ‘ I » V * * M s ' ÈIU u Ji N M v hEi f d ' i i l U (f 1 l [ h f i Gt fU f
Images of the Kingdom: Some invisible points of Cabasilas, and Some Temptations
of Eucharistic Theology”, Synaxi, issue 114 (2010), 13-21 [in Greek], from his side
maintains that the image of the Kingdom can be found not only in the Eucharist, but
also in the solidarity with the poor, the ecclesial witness and the mission.
74 Gregory of Nazianzus, Discourse 36, J.-P. Migne, G. 36,289B.
75 Marios Begzos, Phenomenology o f Religion (Athens: Ellinika Grammata
Publications), 1995, 282 [in Greek]. Cf. Pantelis Kalaitzidis, “From the Division of
Gender to the Unity of the New Life in Christ: Orthodox Theology Facing
146 Theological Education and Theology o f Life
The fall o f Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks (1453), and the consequent
introversion and defensive attitude adopted by the Orthodox Church in
order for it and its peoples to survive the Islamic conquest, contributed
decisively to the sacralisation o f the social conservatism and the structures
o f the traditional societies. It is a great theological and pastoral problem
that Orthodox missionaries bear very often all these conservative elements
taken from the Middle East or the Balkan patriarchal societies to another
socio-cultural milieu, i.e., that o f the mission settings, instead of preaching
the Gospel o f Jesus Christ, and its eschatological vision o f the “new heaven
and new earth,”76 the expected new world o f love, peace, justice, and
equality. It is even more serious, and ironic, that this happens in a moment
when many o f the Christian missions in the Global South - and not only the
Protestant ones - try to re-envision the position and role o f woman in the
church, and reassess her service and commitment to the missionary work.
Gender justice, and liberation from the sacralized burdens o f patriarchal
society are urgent theological, pastoral, and missionary imperatives, and
therefore Orthodoxy in the global scale - mission settings included - has to
decide to what extent will be inspired by the promising Orthodox
theological renewal that took place in the so-called diaspora, and in many
Orthodox countries during the second half o f the 20th century, or if it will
persist in defending anachronistic interdictions and prohibitions, which
make women a second rank faithful in both traditional Orthodox and
missionary settings, and which are more closely related to social
stereotypes, and to the fundamentalist interpretation of tradition rather than
to the eschatological and Eucharistic ethos o f the church, which is called to
transform the world and history, human beings and inter-human/inter-
gender relations.77
Conclusion
After listing all these negative phenomena, let me conclude my discussion
by referring to a positive and encouraging sign, i.e., the revalorization of
mission, and the rediscovery o f mission, especially in today’s Greek
Orthodox theological context, as a co-constitutive element of the making of
the church. After mission being associated with pietistic and activist
religious fellowships such as “Zoe,” and consequently being undervalued
or neglected as W estem-influenced by many theologians o f the “return to
the Fathers” movement, and the Greek theology o f the ’60s,78 thanks to the
work o f theologians, missiologists, and missionaries such as Archbishop
Anastasios (Yannoulatos) o f Tirana and All Albania, Elias Voulgarakis
(1927-1999), Luke Veronis, loan Bria, Metropolitan Geevarghese Mar
Ostathios, Petros Vassiliadis, Metropolitan Geevarghese Mar Coorilos or
Athanasios N. Papathanasiou, we recently began to realize in the Orthodox,
and more specifically in the Greek context, some problematic aspects o f the
previous theological generation, and o f the previous theological
“paradigm,” by finally accepting that mission is not the consequence o f the
catholicity o f the church but the condition for ecclesial catholicity; in other
words that mission is o f the very essence o f the church, that mission is no
less constitutive o f the church than the Eucharist, and that mission is the
implementation and continuation o f C hrist’s command in history, to “go ...
and make disciples o f all nations, baptizing them in the name o f the Father
and o f the Son and o f the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:19, NRSV).79
I do hope that this encouraging sign is just the beginning o f a wider
movement o f ecclesial and spiritual renewal, and o f a deeper awareness of
the global challenges o f today’s world, to which a mission-oriented church
and theology cannot remain indifferent or, even worst, impermeable.