Orthodox Christian Witness for the Third Millenium:

Improving the Mission Document

Rev. Dr. Gregory Edwards (Ph.D., AUTh)

Asst. Prof. of Missiology, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, New York

We are all familiar with the long and arduous process that led, finally,

to the Holy and Great Council held in Crete in 2016. In light of all the

difficulties, there is much to celebrate in the simple fact that at least the

majority of the churches actually convened. Even the churches that refused to

attend, such as the Russian Orthodox Church, acknowledged it as "an

important event in the history of the synodal process in the Orthodox

Church.”1

It is also laudatory that the subject of mission—or, more properly,

witness—made it onto the Council’s limited agenda and resulted in an official

document. Among missiologists, however, there is general consensus that the

document could be improved.

This is understandable in light of the long history of development that

led to the Council and—specifically for our purposes—the document on

mission. The synodal process began in 1961 with the First Pan-Orthodox

Consultation in Rhodes in 1961, some 55 years before the council and this

document were adopted. The basic document was in place by the end of the

Third Pre-Conciliar Council held in Chambésy in 1986, a full 30 years

beforehand, in a world before the fall of Communism, the Internet, and cell

phones.

Prior to the Council, a group of Orthodox missiologists, led by my own

esteemed Professor Petros Vasiliadis, penned a detailed set of suggestions on

the text of the document entitled “Some Comments by Orthodox

1 ЖУРНАЛЫ заседания Священного Синода от 15 июля 2016 года See ″ЖУРНАЛ № 48″.

1
Missiologists.” My ruling hierarch, Metropolitan Alexios of Atlanta, who was

part of the Council, informed me that the concerns of the group, in which I

was honored to play a small part, were read and considered with care and

appreciation.

Little, however, was changed, probably because the process was too far

along for a major revision. I would now like to consider some of the more

glaring deficiencies. As the missiologists’ document “Some Comments”

rightly noted, the problems begin in the title itself.

“Mission” is an outdated term now associated chiefly with aggressive

forms of proselytism, most infamously during the colonial period in Africa.

Archbishop Anastasios was the first to propose the use of the word

“martyria” rather than “mission” as early as the 1970s, emphasizing its

biblical roots in Acts 1:8. It also plays on the Greek words martyros/martyria,

which includes the sense of being an eyewitness, depositing one’s testimony,

and personal sacrifice. Significantly, this proposal was quickly adopted not

only among the Orthodox but among the whole ecumenical movement.2

Elsewhere, the Archbishop writes that that which characterizes martyria is

the offering of our personal experience of the love of Christ. It not about

imposing something but rather about offering our experience, which the other

must always remain completely free to accept or reject.3

For Prof. Vassiliadis, witness has an ecclesial connotation, having to do

with the essence and identity of the Church and not just with the articulation

of dogmas, etc. Thus “witness” is the term much to be preferred. While

dogma is also a part of the ecclesial witness, it has tended to be

overemphasized in modernity, along with the priority of the text over

experience, and thus the concept of “witness” is a useful corrective in that it

2 Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), “Preface,” Mission in Christ’s Way: An Orthodox
Understanding of Mission. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2010, p. xvi.
3 Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), “Dialogues and Mission,” pp. 229-231.

2
puts emphasis again on praxis and experience.4 What is most important here

is not what we do or what we believe, but how we will be, i.e., how our lives

will be a living witness to our experience of the Kingdom of God.5 Thanks to

the Orthodox contribution to the ecumenical dialogue, “witness” has now

become the standard preferred term over “mission.” It is thus quite

unfortunate that an official Orthodox document would not use this term.

Again, as the document “Some Comments” notes, the subtitle of the

official document is also problematic, inasmuch as it refers exclusively to

what might be called issues of “social justice”: The contribution of the Orthodox

Church in realizing peace, justice, freedom, fraternity and love between peoples, and

in the removal of racial and other discriminations.

While these are extremely important elements of the Orthodox

Church’s witness, they—unfortunately—feed into a very real perception of

the Orthodox Church as uninterested in actually preaching the Good News of

Jesus Christ and inviting others into the communion of love we share with the

Holy Trinity itself. Instead, the Orthodox are perceived—not without

justification—as nationalistic and inward-looking, primarily based on their

lack of missionary efforts during the period of Ottoman domination and

continuing in large part through today.

In this light, then, the missiologists’ proposed revision to the subtitle is

subtle and seems unlikely to elicit objection: “Sharing the Orthodox Ecclesial

Experience of a Living Faith and the Signs of Christ’s Presence: peace, justice,

freedom, brotherhood and love between peoples and the removal of racial

and other discrimination.” This change alone would be a significant

improvement, although I would personally suggest a complete rethinking.

4 P. Vassiliadis, “Eucharistic Theology, the Consensus Fidelium, and the Contribution of
Theology to the Ecclesial Witness,” Paper delivered at the ecumenical Symposium in Bari,
December 1999. Available at: http://users.auth.gr/~pv/Euch.Ecclesiology.htm. Last accessed
15 May 2018.
5 Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), “Orthodoxy and Mission,” p. 37.

3
 Considering the time limitations for this paper, I will limit my

comments on the body of the text to three glaring omissions in the official

document. As mentioned earlier, Orthodox missiologists since Archbishop

Anastasios in the 1970s have played a leading role in the ecumenical dialogue

on the subject. Along with the term “witness,” the Orthodox have also

pioneered the concept of “the Liturgy after the Liturgy.”

Fr. Alexander Schmemann was among the first in the ecumenical era to

emphasize the importance of the Eucharist’s inherent double movement, i.e.,

the movement of the people toward God in their offering, followed by the

movement of the people into the world. So there are two movements, one

vertical and one horizontal. It is not by accident, he noted, that the Liturgy

ends with “Let us depart in peace,” for this signifies the beginning of the

second movement, the movement of the people back into the world, from

which they had been gathered for the Eucharist. With this “Let us depart in

peace,” mission begins, since mission is bearing witness to the True Light that

the faithful have just experienced in the Eucharist, the vision of the Kingdom

of God into which the world is to be transformed. Without experiencing the

Kingdom proleptically in the Liturgy, there would be nothing to witness to.6

Boris Bobrinskoy has elaborated on Schmemann’s reflections on “Let

us depart in peace” by noting that it is not the announcement of the end of the

Liturgy and our exit from the Church as individuals, but rather our entrance

as a collective Church into the world, continuing the sending, by the risen

Lord, of the disciples and apostles.7 Fr. Ion Bria has explained the significance

of this two-fold movement in this way: First the people gather to hear the

word of God and eat the bread of life, which is the Eucharistic “bread for

pilgrims,” i.e. sustenance for their work as missionaries in the world. Then, at

6 A. Schmemann, “The Missionary Imperative,” Church, World, Mission: Reflections on

Orthodoxy and the West. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979, p. 215.
7 Boris Bobrinskoy, “Prière du coeur et eucharistie”, in Ioan I. Ica, ed., Person and Communion:

Homage to Fr Dumitru Staniloae, Sibiu, 1993, pp. 631 et seq.

4
the end of the liturgy, they are sent out with the “Let us depart in peace” in

order to become the agents of mission, part of the cloud of witnesses together

with the saints. He writes beautifully: “Mission and diakonia in the world

must be rooted in faith and nourished by the Eucharist.” He describes the

celebration of the Liturgy as the Orthodox approach to mission, since it is

through the Eucharist that they equip missionaries for their work. Elsewhere,

he has called for the Eucharistic liturgy to be liberated from all cultural bonds

so that it becomes a missionary event, the place where the church educates,

teaches, anoints its missionaries–meaning all the people.8

Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis has added the concept of diastole and systole to

this idea, describing the movement toward the world as diastole and the

movement toward God as systole, in other words, the gathering of the

dispersed into the Eucharistic synaxis and then the going out again in

mission. In the Eucharist, he adds, the faithful become Christ’s body and his

living expression. It is therefore natural that they participate in his saving

mission in the world.9

The Eucharist, therefore, can in no way become an escape from the

world, since it is celebrated precisely for the world.10 Rather, the faithful are

summoned into the Eucharistic synaxis in order to send them back out

again.11 There is thus no dichotomy between spiritual life and concern for the

world, because the closer one is to God the closer one is to the world and vice

versa.12 In this view, there can also be no distinction between our life of

8 I. Bria, The Liturgy After the Liturgy, Geneva: WCC Publications, 1996, pp. 24, 37, 27, 53.
9 E. Clapsis, “The Eucharist as Missionary Event in a Suffering World,” Orthodoxy in
Conversation: Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press,
2004, pp. 192-193.
10 I. Bria, “The Liturgy after the Liturgy,” Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism: Statements, Messages

and Reports on the Ecumenical Movement, 1902-1992. Compiled by Gennadios Limouris.

Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994, p. 216.
11 I. Bria, The Liturgy After the Liturgy, p. 20.

12 Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), “Discovering the Orthodox Missionary Ethos,” p.

131.

5
worship inside the temple as opposed to outside in the world. The Liturgy

after the Liturgy, according to Archbishop Anastasios, is the continuation of

the Liturgy on the secret altar of our own heart. Without this continuation, the

Liturgy remains incomplete. The sacrifice of the Eucharist must be extended

into personal sacrifice for the people in need. We are called to a continuous

liberation from the evil working inside us and in society. Archbishop

Anastasios calls this extension liturgical or Eucharistic because it is energized

and effected by the Eucharist, and also, in a circular way,13 constitutes the best

preparation for more conscious participation in the Eucharist, inasmuch as it

is an expression of the real transformation happening to believers in Christ; it

is proof that something is happening, and it is this to which the faithful are

bearing witness with their lives.14 Thus, the faithful need to express their

being in Christ in their diakonia in concrete ways in their local community.

Since the Eucharist is liberation from the powers of evil, the Liturgy after the

Liturgy must be the continuation of this liberation of everything from the

power of evil.15 It implies a continuing struggle against the demonic powers

of evil within us and within society.16

This rich, powerful concept of “the Liturgy after the Liturgy” could

also be used in the official document’s section on ecology (F.10). At the

landmark New Valaam pan-Orthodox consultation in 1977, the theological

consciousness of the Church spoke with one voice in declaring that the

Liturgy after the Liturgy means a liturgical use of the material world and

13 Continuing this circle, Prof. Vassiliadis has also suggested the expression “Liturgy before
the Liturgy,”which sees the mission that springs from the Eucharistic celebration not only as
a result of the Liturgy, but as a preparation for the Liturgy at the end of time, in which Christ,
as High Priest, will offer all things to the Father, as the Apostle Paul wrote. Prof. Vassiliadis
used this expression in a discussion at the conference in honor of Metropolitan John Zizioulas
at the Volos Academy for Theological Studies on October 29, 2011; the Metropolitan of
Pergamon thought this expression was apt.
14 I. Bria, The Liturgy After the Liturgy, p. 20.

15 I. Bria, Go Forth in Peace: Orthodox Perspectives on Mission. Geneva: WCC, 1986, p. 38.

16 Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), “Theology, Mission and Pastoral Care,” p. 92.

6
creation, a transformation of human associations into real koinonia, and

consumerism into an ascetic attitude toward creation. Our witness becomes in

this way a witness to the cosmic dimension of Christ’s salvation, affecting not

only us as individuals but also the whole of creation.17

The second omission that I wish to briefly indicate is the lack of any

self-criticism in the document, particularly with regard to the issue of

nationalism, which I would consider the single biggest issue for Orthodoxy in

the United States. This could be tied in with the loss of the eschatological

perspective, which began to be felt in earnest in the 4th century, with the

institutionalization of the Church and the transformation of the Christian

message from the announcement of God’s imminent reign to the

proclamation of the only true and universal religion. The renowned

Protestant missiologist David Bosch himself cautions against his fellow

Protestants overreacting to this institutionalizaton, citing the fact that the

Christian faith is intrinsically incarnational and thus it will always choose to

enter into each and every new context. The consequence of this incarnational

approach, however, is that the Eastern Church tended to become inward

looking and excessively nationalistic, a sad fact lamented by almost every

contemporary Orthodox commentator.18 The document should at least

acknowledge this lamentable situation as a step toward correcting it.

While the incarnational approach can lead to nationalism, it does not

have to. When applied properly to mission, it is integral to what missiologists

lately have come to call inculturation. And this is the final glaring omission I

would like to discuss.

The incarnational model of mission, “inculturation,” has historically

been the Orthodox Church’s most successful approach to mission. It is

17I. Bria, “The Liturgy after the Liturgy,” p. 219.
18Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
1991, pp. 196, 190, 212.

7
characterized by, among other things, translation into the native language

and the local people’s involvement in diakonia, particularly the ordained

diakonia.

Theologically, the inculturation model is based on the fact that the

Church is the Body of Christ, or Christ extended through the ages, meaning

that Christ is present in history, that He has flesh, that “the Word became

flesh and dwelt among us.”19 This, in turn, necessitates that Christ and His

Church be clothed at every moment in the cultural flesh of the world, the

essentials of each people. Every moment in every place is a new Pentecost, a

new descent of the Holy Spirit, which does not belong exclusively to one

culture and one people and their expressions.20

The fact that the Gospel is clothed in the flesh of the world means that

not only does it not reject any culture from the outset, but rather it is grafted

into the existing culture with the goal of transforming it, “Christifying” it, and

“Churchifying” it.21 The culture being approached should be viewed with

respect, assuming, as Christians have done throughout history, that the new

culture contains some elements of good. According to Bria, missionaries

should look to St. Paul, who became all things to all people,22 as an example of

the missionary par excellence immersing himself completely in the local

culture, not seeking to impose his own culture.23 Rather, the faith engages in a

true dialogue with the new culture.

The goal of mission is to establish Eucharistic communities in every

location, within its context culture, all of which constitute at the same time the

one Church of God in Christ. For Afanasiev, this explains why St. Paul says

19 Jn 1:14.
20 Μητροπολίτου Νιγηρίας Αλεξάνδρου, “Ιεραποστολή και Πολιτισµός,” p. 5.
21 Th. Papathanasiou, “Mission: A Consequence or, perhaps, a presupposition of

Catholicity?,” Future, The Background of History: Essays on Church Mission in an Age of

Globalization. Montréal, Québec: Alexander Press, 2005, p. 26.
22 1 Cor 9:20-23.

23 I. Bria, Go Forth in Peace, p. 16.

8
he does not baptize but rather preaches the Gospel (1 Cor 1:17) – he builds

communities rather than convert individuals.24 Within each of these

communities, the most effective witness is an example of openness and unity,

as well as the spirituality and holiness of members, expressed in participation

together in the eucharist and their diakonia and concern for one another, such

as we see in St. Paul’s collection. In this model, each local church and each

local parish is called to preach and teach and actually be the Gospel in their

particular place and time.25

I would say that the concept of inculturation is the most significant

concept is missiology today. The Church’s official document on mission,

therefore, should contain some acknowledgment of it. Inculturation points

the way forward in places—like my own United States—that have been

damaged by the deformed version of the incarnational approach, nationalism.

By way of conclusion, there is some debate about whether these

documents are “binding” on all the local Orthodox Churches, including the

ones who refused to attend. While the Russians acknowledge them as part of

the “synodal process,” the Patriarchate of Antioch has clearly stated that they

are not. The OCA was not an official part of the Council, and have issued no

statement on the documents. This is unfortunate since here in the United

States, the Patriarchate of Antioch and the OCA are the two leading

jurisdictions in efforts to witness to Americans who have no ethnic ties to

Orthodoxy.

This is yet another reason to continue working on this important

Orthodox document on mission or, rather, witness. I would suggest that, as

soon as possible, the hierarchs appoint a working committee of missiologists

24 N. Afanasiev, The Church of the Holy Spirit. Translated by Vitaly Permiakov. Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007, pp. 113-117.
25 I. Bria, Go Forth in Peace, pp. 12, 40.

9
to craft such a revision or even a new document, that could be considered in a

timely manner ahead of such a future Council, if God so wills.

10