Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GREEK ORTHODOX
ARCHDIOCESE
Dr. Roman Yereniuk RLGN 2520
Every two years in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North & South America, a clergy-
laity congress is assembled, the purpose of which is to deal with the administrative affairs of the
Church. In the essay that follows, we will summarize the principal aspects of the keynote addresses
from these congresses under the hierarchical direction of Archbishop Iakovos, held over a twenty-
year period beginning in 1960, from the perspective of Fr. Stanley Haraksas in the article “Social
Concern and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’ as presented in the Greek Orthodox Theological
Reviewi
We begin with the fifteenth Clergy-Laity Congress in 1960 which took place in Buffalo,
New York. While the better part of the keynote address dealt with administrative concerns,
Archbishop Iakovos did devote a section to philanthropic purposes exhorting both clergy and laity
In 1962, the congress held in Boston had offered no specific portion of the meetings to be
designated to social concerns. That being noted however, the hierarch’s emphasis on parish unity,
spiritual renewal and focus, did provide the foundation from which future congresses would
Two years later (1964) the Archbishop picked up where he had left off in the previous
congress calling for “ecclesial rebirth.” The spiritual direction regarding the “work of the Church”
was reiterated along with the “corollary of responsibility” and commitment. Iakovos emphatically
affirms that the Church is not only an organization but the Body of Christ and bemoaned the fact
i
Stanley S. Harakas. GOTR vol. XXV, no. 4. Pages 377-408.
Garagan 2
that it is rarely conceived as such. The onus on all of the faithful to see themselves as a ‘member
of the body’ and not only as a member the community was also duly noted. (382)
What this commitment means as delineated by Archbishop Iakovos, is that the church can
no longer assume a passive role in America; rather, the church’s mission is to impart the faith,
thereby facilitating “the light of Orthodoxy to shine forth.” This new mission included an increased
emphasis on matters of social concern. There needed to be, in his estimation, a shift in the church’s
focus, which up until that time only concerned itself with matters that are restricted to local
interests, such as membership dues and Church bylaws. A new paradigm was required to tackle
the fundamental problems of the modern era, such as divorce, religious syncretism and the secular
spirit. (382-383)
The Eighteenth congress was held in Canada, an historical first. It was also the first time
a “Social and Moral Issues” committee was to participate in the congress. Additionally,
Archbishop Iakovos in his keynote address significantly makes mention of social concern several
times. Orthodox foundations, he noted, were to be the springboard for development and progress
in the area of social issues. The hierarch conveys that in the twentieth century the church is to
rebuild as well as reorder “Christian moral and spiritual principles and values.” (384)
global social concerns. Some of the more significant topics mentioned were as follows:
Overpopulation, hunger, health, disarmament, social equality, “the problem of atheism”, and the
“religious crisis.” A second major topic covered in Iakovos’ address is the moral climate of the
epoch. To this he observes that “a terrible confusion and inversion and distortion has been suffered
by those spiritual and moral principles and which for ages were used as guidelines and as the basis
for forming and developing human character”. Moreover, the Church’s role he explains is not to
Garagan 3
identify the symptom but to mend the illness, irrespective of the time it takes, and “no matter how
His Eminence did not recede there. As in previous congresses, he states that God’s people,
that is the Church, is pivotal in the healing of a society broken by fallacious social and moral ills.
He likens his sermon to a symphony and in this regard there needs to be a “harmony between faith
and practice.”
Harakas views this congress with historical significance since it marked a point in time
wherein “Orthodox Christianity made a turn from introspection and exclusive self concern to
viewing itself as responsible for the moral and social concerns of the age.” (387)
The Nineteenth congress convened in Athens, Greece in July of 1968. The congress’ theme
was unity, in particular between the Greek church in the Americas and the Church of Greece.
While presenting the diaspora as a Church rather than merely an ‘ethnic colony of Greece’, the
Archbishop concurrently raised matters of social concern. For instance, in the summary of his
discourse he offered an analysis of America’s moral climate in the late sixties “and early
seventies”, of which our author quotes extensively. What is conveyed, from an abbreviated
perspective is that the world has become desacralized and “religion is reduced to a meaningless or
a statistical discussion”; hence, “it is in such a world that modern man and his church must live.”
(388)
Faced with such an ominous outlook, His Eminence encourages, that for the Orthodox
Christian, it is expedient to comprehend his faith as “directly applicable” to the matters that plague
the age. With respect to this, the priests are to play a leading role, not only in this but in all
The twentieth clergy-laity congress was held in New York in 1970. From the viewpoint of
Fr. Harakas, the feel of the congress was a departure from previous ones. While the former
conference, Harakas communicates, were “objective, intellectual, and in some fashion detached.”
The Archbishop’s discourse would be regarded as one of the most controversial of his tenure, due
to his proposal that English be introduced into the liturgical services of the Church. (392)
In matters of social concern, the Archbishop inferenced that social action must have
Orthodox Christian principles as their foundation. His exposition covered themes connected to
war, the relationships between children and parents/adults, private and public moral ethics, among
others. Regarding the youth and society’s prevailing ideologies, His Eminence’s statement is not
only apropos for the Church of the 1970’s, but it is also apropos for the contemporary Church. His
cogent observations are as follows: This is an ideological war in the most covert, sophisticated, and
deceitful manner. The target of this war is the moral and the intellectual integrity of the youth.” He relates
in furtherance the workings of this ideology. First doubt is instilled, then love and respect of all traditional
institutions is ridiculed as passé and dictatorial, and finally, a “merciless brainwashing” occurs supplanting
traditional moral absolutes with “false philosophies and a frightening intellectual chaos and agony. (393)
As to how parents or adults contribute to the depravity of the youth, the Archbishop relates
that this particular generation refuses to tolerate hypocrisy, and that parents should be more vigilant
with respect to their own conduct and how they converse with their children. The hierarch proposes
repentance and responsibility as keys to healing family’s and by extension, society’s dysfunction.
(394)
The Twenty-First congress took place in 1972, and emphasized the ‘inner-life of the
church” and more particularly parish life itself, as opposed to the Archdiocese. (395)
Garagan 5
In the first section Iakovos notes that the culture exerts a “far greater influence” on our
children than “our efforts to impose our traditions as an element or structure.” In his view, the onus
is on the adult church which the archbishop relates “have not tried, or are unable to teach the
language of religion.” Dissimilar to the ideology that is based on instinct, the church’s teaching is
rooted in logic and the “experience of past generations.” It is our reluctance or incapability to
answer their daring questions concerning the physiological life, the Archbishop suggests, that
The hierarch follows the above section with a severe scrutiny “of the parental failure” to
impart spiritual values to their children. Correspondingly and subsequently, an acerbic criticism of
society and its rhetoric is imparted in reference to the youth of “our day.” As he puts it, society
“speaks of morality, while being basically immoral. It speaks of religion, but understands it not as
a spiritual exhortation, but as an institutional service at its beck and call… (it understands)
education as a means to prepare oneself for earning greater wealth…” The problem he insists is
that we need to first disencumber ourselves “from our self-admiration and self-satisfaction”. He
also called for a rebirth that would resolve “our own psychological complexes” with certainty, and
thus enable the church to confront and solve the problems “besetting our children with self-
In the final section of his exposition, Archbishop Iakovos responds indirectly to reproaches
of Orthodox involvement in the ecumenical movement and once more emphasizes the need for
social action. There is a responsibility of the Orthodox, he conveys, to study the problems of “our
time” and to adopt positions that reflect Christocentric and Biblical teachings. (397).
In his keynote address, in Chicago, 1974, inaugurating the 22nd Clergy-Laity congress, His
Eminence breaks with precedent, forgoing the discussion of future plans in favor of a theological
Garagan 6
treatise based on Romans 12:2: “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Harakas
depicts this address as “of permanent significance” and further relates, that to summarize it would
do injustice to its “spirit and movement”. He opines that this particular address is a theologically
calm reflection which applies the veracity of the Word of God “to the reality of the church.”
The principal thesis, ‘be ye reformed’, is the Archbishop’s appeal for a spiritual renewal,
“not on an emotional level” but rather a renewal that incorporates the realignment of human and
ecclesial wills “to the will of God and the mind of Christ.” This means that it is imperative for the
Underlying and applying this theme to social issues, is the intention of Archbishop Iakovos,
in the section entitled “Study of Problems as a Christian Responsibility.” Harakas highlights the
major points in the sentences that follow. With regards to moral problems that affect the faithful,
the Archbishop points out that their cause is a corollary of “human behaviour” that consciously
rejects Christian ethics. Moreover, the dishonourable level in which man relates to his neighbor
has dire consequences: “hypocrisy, insincerity, dishonesty, violence, insolence…and their by-
products fear, destruction, crime, and corruption.” As Christians, he remarks we must spiritually
arm ourselves with the “panoply of God” citing Ephesians 6: 13-20 as support. (398-399)
The antinomy that predominates the thinking of “our times” His Eminence avows, can only
be eradicated when the “human mind is reinstated within the framework of Christian logic” and
endures a comprehensive and “radical revision and renewal.” He strenuously underscores this
need for one reason: “the responsibility we have to put an end to extravagant thinking and speaking
and false reasoning which has become the logic of our times.” (399)
Garagan 7
The Archbishop persists, identifying a host of moral duplicities plaguing the era, adding
that these are not the only illogical effects of the “new logic.” Almost everything, the hierarch
observes, that has hitherto been deemed as illegal practices, “such as abortion, homosexuality,
and practically all unlawful actions which in pain St. Paul enumerates” in his epistle to Galatia,
are now legalized. He ends his address lamenting how far society has strayed from the path of
righteousness and how consequently the “life of our youth, find themselves in fatal danger.” (400)
Philadelphia was the host city for the 23rd Clergy-laity Congress in 1976 which coincided
with the Bicentennial of the United States. Thus, the motif of the Archbishop was underscored by
In this address he placed a great deal of emphasis on respecting the law. His passionate
concern in this regard was most likely due to recent legal changes which he undoubtedly viewed
as the “individualistic exploitations of human liberty” while posing as liberty itself, “thus
In the final paragraph of his message, Archbishop Iakovos, once more reiterated the need
for a vigilant approach to the moral questions facing his epoch. The preponderance of libertarian
ideals may have prompted his commentary. He also lectured that in matters of faith,
“which constitute the ethos and nature of our Greek Orthodox life we ought to be more judicious.
In issues of Christian faith and morals our personal interpretations have no place. We shall one
day regret our flippancy and receive a just retribution (Hebrews 2:3), to use the Pauline
expression.” (402)
Garagan 8
From Harakas’ vantage point, the culmination of the Archbishop’s consideration for social
issues was occasioned by his address at the 24th Clergy-Laity Congress of 1978, in Detroit,
Michigan, the theme of which was “Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only” (James 1:22)
(Ibid).
The chief purpose of the Congress was to decentralize the authority of the church by
establishing “a synod of bishops”. While most of the discourse was devoted to the restructuring of
the Archdiocese, there were many references, in that context, to social concern. For instance, one
of the benefits of the restructure, in the expectations of His Eminence, was the social mission of
the Church. Three pages of the 27-page document detailing the rearrangement of the Archdiocese
were dedicated to matters of social concern. In these pages he expresses his pastoral apprehension
as to “our” coping abilities, bearing in mind “our ever-changing society” which he believes, “will
be with us for a long time.” The hierarch reveals that the source of his fear has its basis in the “so-
called situational ethics and ‘new morality’” that seriously challenge the “values and principles we
profess to believe.” Yet despite his vexation, the Archbishop exhorts his people to resist the
ungodly spirit of the age, the pseudo-intellectualism that sees Orthodox believers as victims of
antiquated “anachronistic and obsolete beliefs.” In one question to the congress we can see his
lucid assessment of the current situation: “(We are to be) the defenders of the changeless values of
Christianity against attempts by quasi-ethics to unseat spirituality and moral sensitivity for the
place they have occupied for centuries as the molders of our ethos and the fashioners of our human
behaviour.” (404).
Reminiscent of previous congresses, Iakovos offers a solution to the present problem, but
this time in a more sobering and scathing manner. He contends that Christians need to “wake up”
and admit their ineffectualness, and return to the spiritual power, which he clearly conveys as “God
Garagan 9
and His Will and Word, as it is recorded in the Bible and in the annals of Christian, Greek and
The epilogue of the exposition included a petition for world peace and the solidification of
the American family. Finally, there was a tripartite call to commitment: A commitment to
“increased Christian social action”; to object imprudent and injurious use of authority; and to
CONCLUSION
In summary, Harakas’ overview of the ten clergy-laity congresses evidences the enduring
“tradition of concern for social” matters in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of the Americas. The
keynote addresses of Archbishop Iakovos over his twenty-year tenure were replete with references
to social concerns. One can observe by any considerate perusal of the documents that the
“affirmations and concerns”, with respect to the Archbishop’s social mission over the two decades