Source: Orthodox Times
International Conference on Theology at the Theological School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
by Efi Efthymiou
A comprehensive dialogue unfolded on the morning of Thursday, marking the final day of the International Conference on Theology, as the discussion centered on the theme of the Orthodox Church and its role in contemporary geopolitics.
The panel featured distinguished participants, including Angelos Syrigos, Professor of International Law and Foreign Policy at Panteion University and Member of Parliament for Athens A constituency, alongside Evangelos Venizelos, former Deputy Prime Minister of Greece and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Professor of Constitutional Law of the Law School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Emmanuel Karageorgoudis, Dean of the Theological School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Fr. Nikolaos Kazaryan, Ecumenical Officer and Director of the Department of Inter-Orthodox, Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia and Professor of the Department of Theology of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Metropolitan Vasileios of Constantia, Professor at the Theological School of the Church of Cyprus, President of the World Council of Churches on behalf of the Orthodox, Metropolitan Gregorios of Peristeri, Professor of the Department of Theology of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Fr. Ioannis Chrysavgis, Archdeacon of the Ecumenical Throne, Professor of the Greek Orthodox School of Theology of the Holy Cross, and Svetoslav Ribolov, an Associate Professor of Greek Patristics at the “St. Kliment Ohridski” University of Sofia.
Evangelos Venizelos, taking the floor, emphasized that the issue of the diaspora is fundamentally a matter of canonical jurisdiction, which rests with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He also highlighted a notable paradox: “Orthodox societies in Europe are more aligned with the cluster of Catholic countries than with those having an Orthodox tradition. There is a lack of contrast between an Orthodox identity and mentality. Discussing Orthodoxy within a liberal environment is vastly different from addressing it within an authoritarian one.”
Fr. Ioannis Chrysavgis, contributing to the dialogue, underscored the importance of self-awareness and a realistic perspective. “As Greeks or Orthodox Christians, we often forget that we are not the focal point or center of importance in the world. Despite having Patriarchates and Primacy, we are but a tiny drop in a vast ocean. Those with whom we engage may have grand ideas, but their interests are often minimal. Whether we look at Ukraine or the Middle East, where Christians, Muslims, and Jews are locked in conflict, it reveals the Church’s failure to address situations that devastate contemporary reality,” he remarked.
Fr. Chrysavgis continued with a pointed critique: “How can the Patriarch of Moscow preside over liturgies, and how can his Metropolitans continue serving with him, knowing that the same Cross he holds to bless the war is used in worship? No matter how much we delve into canonical matters or ordination, no matter how many grand temples we construct or marvel at weeping icons, we must admit we have been defeated. Embracing humility is imperative—it is the only path to understanding our true position in the geopolitical landscape.”
He further warned, “We are lagging behind on many issues. It is essential to bridge gaps and unite distances.” He concluded with a thought-provoking question: “Will we choose to move forward, or will we remain stagnant, content in our isolation and comfort zones?”
The Dean of the Theological School, Emmanuel Karageorgoudis, highlighted the divisions within the body of local Orthodox Churches. “The Orthodox Church is not truly unified; the local Churches often function as national entities. The Phanar plays a coordinating role, whereas Russia exploits Orthodoxy to serve its expansionist policies, as evident in its invasion of Ukraine and interference in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Russia leverages its financial power to steer outcomes in its favor,” he remarked.
Metropolitan Vassilios of Constantia and Famagusta drew a parallel between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing occupation of Cyprus. “What saddens Cypriots and Hellenism as a whole is the inconsistency in international responses. Measures were imposed on Russia for its actions in Ukraine, yet no comparable actions have been taken against Turkey, which has been an invader in Cyprus since 1963. At one point, there were discussions about opening the closed city of Famagusta, simply because Erdogan expressed a desire to turn it into a tourist destination akin to Las Vegas. I wrote letters as Metropolitan to all Members of the European Parliament, organizations, and embassies, but received responses from only two or three. A culture cannot be extinguished, and we cannot be selective when speaking up or taking action on such issues. International law should not be dictated by the preferences of individual nations. Turkey, like Russia, must be held accountable for its actions in Cyprus.”
Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia addressed the role of Orthodoxy in geopolitics, emphasizing the situation in Ukraine. “The Ukrainian state seeks ways to represent the Orthodox faithful within its borders, but this also requires the will of the Orthodox themselves to move towards unity,” he stated. He also delved into the issue of the Church of Skopje, pointing out that “in Skopje, the state demands the Church consolidate its name in alignment with the state’s name, disregarding the Prespa Agreement. This demonstrates a deliberate instrumentalization of Orthodoxy to manipulate the Autocephaly that was granted.”
Metropolitan Chrysostomos further highlighted the disruptive role of Russia in global Orthodoxy. “Can we justify what is happening in Africa or the Middle East? Today, there exists a fragmented and conflicting understanding of Orthodoxy’s role in the shifting geopolitical landscape. Russia utilizes Orthodoxy as a tool, deploying satellite entities that operate disruptively within countries and undermine the cohesion of the Orthodox Churches in relation to other Christian Churches and confessions.”
Associate Professor Svetoslav Ribolov of the Theological School “St. Kliment Ohridski” at the University of Sofia emphasized the strong support in Bulgarian society for Greece’s stance on the Macedonian issue, noting that 90% of Bulgarians back the Greek position. “This marks a significant shift from the 1990s, when Bulgarian foreign policy made major missteps,” he stated. However, Ribolov expressed concern over growing divisions in the Balkans, highlighting Russia’s influence in the region.
“Even in Bulgaria, 20% of society supports Russia’s position. Through electronic outlets and media, Russia exerts influence, as seen during the elections of the country’s Patriarch and President,” he explained. Ribolov pointed out that for years, the Bulgarian state had minimal engagement with the Church, largely due to the influx of Russian capital. “Between 2016 and 2022, Russia sought connections with Metropolitans, Bishops, and bureaucrats. This pressure contributed to Bulgaria’s absence from the Council of Crete,” he noted. However, in 2022, the expulsion of 74 Russian Embassy officials marked a shift. Ribolov suggested that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church might recognize the Orthodox Church of Ukraine within the next 1-2 years, as there is no unified stance on the Ukrainian issue within the Bulgarian Church today.
Metropolitan Gregorios of Peristeri, a Professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, introduced the concept of “geo-ecclesiasticalism,” a term he coined to describe the interplay between ecclesiastical affairs and geopolitics. Using Ukraine as an example, he explained how two Orthodox peoples under the Moscow Patriarchate are in conflict, with one group seeking self-determination while Moscow resists. This dynamic, he argued, demonstrates the connection between geopolitics and ecclesiastical structures.
Syrigos, Professor of International Law and Foreign Policy at Panteion University, elaborated on Russia’s methods of infiltration in other countries, pointing to a cultural strategy. “The Russians focus on promoting ‘elders’ rather than Saints, a trend that has even spread to Greece,” he remarked, highlighting the subtle cultural and spiritual influence exerted by Moscow.
Taking the floor again, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia criticized the Russian Church’s expansionist policies, citing the new charter of the Church of Russia under Patriarch Kirill. “The charter explicitly states that any place in the world with Russian cultural or religious traditions belongs to the Russian Church,” he explained. This policy, he argued, seeks to assert Moscow’s ecclesiastical presence globally. He also warned against adopting Russian religious customs in Greece, such as constructing Russian-style temples or venerating Russian icons, as these practices reinforce Moscow’s ethnophyletism.
Fr. Nicolas Kazaryan reflected on the Orthodox Church’s history in America, noting that geopolitical events often forced many Orthodox Christians to seek refuge in the United States. “Orthodox Christians found themselves in a country that, just 100 years ago, had no knowledge of Orthodoxy,” he observed. This migration, he explained, highlights the enduring relationship between geopolitical upheaval and the spread of Orthodoxy.
Dean Emmanuel Karageorgoudis underscored the need for Orthodoxy to develop “self-consciousness,” recognizing its supranational importance. However, he lamented the fragmentation of the Orthodox world, as local churches often prioritize national interests over unity.
Karageorgoudis also highlighted the instrumentalization of the Moscow Patriarchate by the Russian state, stating, “Russia uses its Church as a tool, but the Moscow Patriarchate also allows itself to be instrumentalized to push certain agendas.” He pointed out the paradox in Western-aligned nations where ecclesiastical issues still serve Russian interests.
Evangelos Venizelos, former Deputy Prime Minister of Greece, linked the election of Donald Trump to the broader geopolitical context of Orthodoxy. “To achieve autocephaly, there must also be a state. This is the challenge Ukraine faces moving forward,” he remarked, drawing parallels to the Middle East, where conflicts involving Russia, Israel, and Syria influence the positions of the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch.
Venizelos suggested that Orthodoxy could play a significant role in the West’s strategic framework if it aligns itself as part of the Western paradigm. He cautioned, however, that Trump’s presidency might bring a “cynical” approach to issues like Ukraine, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape.
Professor Angelos Syrigos highlighted a recent ecclesiastical controversy in Cyprus following the passing of Archbishop Chrysostomos. The eligibility criteria for voting in the Archbishop’s election included a tax identification number and proof of residence. “Imagine how different the result would be if the 50,000-70,000 Russians living in Cyprus would have voted,” he said.
Metropolitan Vassilios of Constantia reflected on the rise of Vladimir Putin and the establishment of the “Russian world” doctrine, which promotes Russian culture and traditions as unifying forces, even for non-Christians. He warned, “Russia has never shed the belief that all former USSR territories belong to the ‘Russian world.’ When Moscow prays for the unity of Russian lands, it may signal an intention to stop the war only when Kyiv is conquered.”
Vassilios also expressed concerns about the diminishing Greek character of the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. “We must not forget Jerusalem and Alexandria,” he stressed, adding that Cyprus has been asked to support Greek education initiatives in Jerusalem to preserve the Patriarchate’s identity.
Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia addressed widespread misunderstandings about autocephaly. He explained, “Autocephaly doesn’t mean isolation. It signifies communion defined and structured by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” He revealed that during the preparatory work for the Council of Crete, Russian representatives pushed to include provisions on “holy war,” a proposal strongly opposed by the Greek Orthodox Churches. “Thankfully, we succeeded in preventing this,” he noted.
Closing the discussion, Metropolitan Gregorios of Peristeri highlighted the beauty and challenges of autocephaly. “Autocephaly is a gift to Orthodox peoples mature enough to handle it. Otherwise, it leads to problems,” he said. He pointed to the Russian Church as an example, which, after receiving autonomy, distanced itself from communion with other Orthodox Churches.
