Addendum 10/2/19: To advance the discussion of Orthodox ecclesiology and the role of primacy in today’s Church, Archdeacon Chryssavgis’ article from a year ago must be read in conjunction with The Ecumenical Patriarch: First without Equals by Archbishop Elpidophoros of America.

It is tempting to consign the rift between Constantinople and Moscow—this time over autocephaly in Ukraine—to competition within the Orthodox world over power and jurisdiction. The reality is more complex. Beyond the multifaceted religious intrigue lie murky geopolitical ramifications. The matter transcends any exercise of right or even the simple exhibition of might.

The issue of the autocephaly (literally, “self-headed”, or self-governing) of the Church in Ukraine, along with questions of the validity of orders and sacraments, are vital to Orthodox unity, but they pale before the isolationism and nationalism that has plagued Orthodox Christianity in recent centuries. This is the essential context to Moscow’s decision to cut communion with Constantinople. The demoralising effect this is having on the wider Church—coercing bishops and synods into taking sides—only underlines how a handful of Orthodox hierarchs make decisions without concern for or consultation with the lay community. Tragically, it is putting at risk hard-won Orthodox unity in Western Europe and the United States, where Orthodox Churches of all jurisdictions work together on missionary and humanitarian projects.

Of course, the Orthodox Church has never been democratic, even at its most conciliar. But the Early Church understood that the power to discern authenticity—what Orthodox liturgy calls “rightly dividing the word of truth”—does not belong to a bishop or synod alone, but to the Church as a whole. The rights and wrongs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision—originally issued last April and affirmed this month—to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church (long estranged from Moscow) could be debated by canon lawyers and argued over by church historians. For instance, Moscow may question how Constantinople can restore millions of Ukrainians to communion—but how could Moscow have branded an entire generation of believers “schismatics”? Whenever a mainly Orthodox nation has become an independent state, it has, after a while, gained its own autocephalous Church with its own patriarch; ecclesiastical borders in the Orthodox world frequently follow political borders. But the sweeping reprisals emanating from Moscow suggest something deeper than just a dispute over territory. Yes, Russia stands to lose property; but Constantinople hardly stands to gain wealth or power. Read More

St. James “the Brother of God”

I was moved to write a commentary on the Letter of James and, as of this past week, it is in print. I have written other books on specifically biblical subjects, one of them a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (Taking Jesus at His Word: What Jesus Really Said in the Sermon on the Mount, 2012), but that was only a pastoral analysis of a single lengthy passage in Matthew’s Gospel; and another short volume in which I looked at some of the symbolic images in the Gospel of John and explored their meaning (The Woman, the Hour, and the Garden: A Study of Imagery in the Gospel of John, 2016).

But The Letter of James: A Pastoral Commentary is my first venture in commenting on an entire biblical book. There have been many commentaries on James, of course, but I’m audacious enough to think that mine is, at least, timely. If there was ever a season when we would benefit from opening up James afresh and really listening to his message, ours is certainly one such time. A few of my reasons, then, for writing the book might be worth sharing here.

First and foremost, it is the epistle that, above all others in the canon, sounds the most like Jesus Himself, as we find His words in the Synoptic Gospels. This should scarcely surprise us, since—as I argue in the book—I believe the letter is authentic, not pseudonymous. It seems to be an encyclical that comes from the hand or dictation of James “the Just” of Jerusalem, “the brother of the Lord,” written sometime between the years 58 (Paul’s arrest) and 62 (James’ martyrdom) to counter a distorted form of Paul’s message. A distorted form, I should add, that is in many ways still with us today. Read More

Bartholomew: Apostle and Visionary
John Chryssavgis (Foreword by Pope Francis)
Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2016

My journey with Orthodox brothers and sisters started with Brighton ’91. With assistance from Monsignor Peter Hocken, I put together this first global conference for Pentecostal scholars. The keynote speaker was Professor Jürgen Moltmann and our presenters were Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Protestant, and Pentecostal. Since that time, I have never put together a conference without Orthodox participation the most recent being Oxford 2012 that featured Metropolitan Kallistos Ware.

In June 2009, I was granted a Private Audience with His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. One immediate result was the launching of informal talks between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Pentecostals for the next three years. The co-chairs for these talks mentioned in the biography were Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima and myself. I wrote the following in an initial letter to His All-Holiness proposing the talks: “I am emboldened in this quest by reading in your book Encountering the Mystery that Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II broke new ground in the 16^th century ‘Augsburg-Constantinople’ encounter. Dr. Paraskevè Tibbs projects that perhaps Melanchthon himself recast the Augsburg Confession in Greek for the benefit of this significant exchange.”

This brilliant biography by Archdeacon John Chryssavgis is a clarion call for Christians from around the world to benefit from the apostolic and visionary leadership of 25 years of guiding the Christian East by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The introductory chapter is titled “Just Call Me Bartholomew” taken from the 2009 “60 Minutes” interview of His All-Holiness and so it will be in this article. I was so intrigued by the text that I flew to Boston, MA, for a personal conversation with Archdeacon Chryssavgis. I left that exchange impressed by the scholarly and ecclesiastical acumen of one of the most astute Orthodox theologians that I have come to know personally.This journey with the Orthodox exposed the Western slant of all my theological training. Although I am indebted to what I learned from Augustine, I came to thirst being enriched also by Chrysostom. As a result, I have become increasingly aware how mainstream media in the West is quick to point to the exploits of Pope Francis while paying less attention to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew even when the two were involved in joint ventures like the 2016 refugee outreach in Lesbos. This media inequality, however, has never drawn criticism from His All-Holiness. Read More

The following two brief reports will interest our readers on all sides of the question of Ukrainian autocephaly.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople

Russia Paying Big Money for Articles, Black Propaganda in Light of Ukraine Developments
by Andreas Loudaros

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew yesterday sent a clear message to Russia vis-à-vis the Ukraine issue, stating that Constantinople has no intention whatsoever of giving in to pressure.

While addressing an audience at an event in Istanbul celebrating the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Feriköy Greek community, His All-Holiness made it clear that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are rooted in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and legally binding for all within Orthodoxy.

“Whether our Russian brothers like it or not, soon enough they will get behind the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s solution, as they will have no other choice,” said Patriarch Bartholomew, adding that he is well aware of the Russian side’s efforts in funding the writing of articles and creating ‘black’ propaganda in order to strike back at the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Read More