Source: Religion News Service
The current ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, has balanced the growing power of Moscow, but the question of a successor has become pressing.
(RNS) — In September Patriarch Bartholomew I, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, will travel from Istanbul to the United States to collect his Templeton Prize. In his 34 years on the throne of St. Andrew, the spiritual leader of a broad segment of the Eastern Orthodox world has made a reputation for himself as a moderate voice in not only the church but the affairs of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Middle East — places where the defense of human rights, interreligious dialogue and environmental justice are often helpful.
More notably, the patriarch of Constantinople has long provided the most powerful and consistent balance to Kirill, the patriarch of Moscow, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a chief propagandist for the regime at home and abroad.
But Bartholonew is 85, and the question of a successor has become pressing. The pool of successors is limited by the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which officially ended World War I. It also established the borders of the modern Turkish state and set the terms by which the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate was allowed to remain in the country, with the stipulation that the patriarch must be a Turkish citizen.
Over the past century, as Christians have fled genocide and persecution in the country, the number of clerics eligible to assume the patriarchal throne has diminished. For those who favor a modern Orthodox Church and a moderating presence in an increasingly authoritarian world, the obvious choice to succeed Bartholomew is Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, the current hierarch of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America.
Born Ioannis Lambriniadis in Istanbul in 1967, Archbishop Elpidophros attended high school and university in Athens, Greece, before doing his postgraduate work in Germany, Lebanon and Thessaloniki, Greece. Since becoming archbishop of America in 2011, he has discomfited conservatives who call his positions on abortion, same-sex couples and women’s roles in the institutional church too liberal, especially for Orthodox Christianity. This criticism that has been seized upon by pro-Russian forces eager to forward their claim to be the guardians of “traditional Orthodoxy.”
He has also drawn fire from Turkish nationalists, who have objected to his calls to end the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, his use of the world “ecumenical” to describe the patriarch of Constantinople (Turkey does not recognize the global role of the patriarch) and his use of the name Constantinople for the city as opposed to its post-1930 name, Istanbul. Recently, Turkish nationalists have called for his Turkish passport to be revoked and for him to banned in the country, in effect calling for him to be barred from becoming the next patriarch of Constantinople.
These calls have come as Turks have protested the arrest by Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s regime of opposition leader and (now former) Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. These protests, among the most significant resistance Erdogan has faced in more than two decades in power, could help liberal Turks navigate the country toward a more liberal future, one in which Elpidophoros could be an asset, not a source of frustration.
On March 24, the day before Greek Independence Day, Elpidophoros gave remarks at the White House to commemorate the Greek revolution against the Ottoman Empire, as is customary for the Greek archbishop. The archbishop fulsomely praised his host, President Donald Trump, saying he had led “the world in championing freedom and peace between all people,” horrifying many who had looked to Elpidophoros as a source of hope for a progressive future for the Orthodox world.
While this reaction is understandable, realpolitik is, well, real, and in the present situation, giving ground might be the best strategy to win the war. There are few people more prone to flattery than Trump, especially perhaps superfluous flattery. He also is prone to abandoning ideological commitments in the name of personal taste. This is exactly what the archbishop needs to overcome his precarious position with his countrymen.
Trump clearly has an affinity for strongmen in general and Russia in particular. Elpidophoros has proved himself a potentially powerful enemy of both. It would be disastrous for Elpidophoros to follow Bishop Marian Budde’s lead and call attention to himself. It would also be a disaster for the largely wealthy and well-connected Greek American community and for the vulnerable Greek minorities in Turkey and Cyprus, not to mention the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians who have shifted their allegiance from Moscow to Constantinople.
There are some for whom this explanation will not be enough to excuse Elpidophoros’ remarks, certainly those American progressives for whom symbolic speech acts are more valued than actually advancing the cause. But no leader, whether of church or state, will pass their test. Rather, we should let Elpidophoros’ words and deeds over more than a decade, as well as those of his enemies, speak for themselves. He remains the best hope for a moderate, modern and thoughtful future for Orthodox Christianity.
(Katherine Kelaidis, a research associate at the Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, England, is the author of “Holy Russia? Holy War?” and the forthcoming “The Fourth Reformation.” The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of RNS.)