by George Demacopoulos | ру́сский | српски
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus
The documents approved by the Primates of the Church for the Great and Holy Council are not particularly controversial. They are the product of consensus, negotiated over decades, that often repeat previous declarations rather than addressing the more challenging questions that face the modern Church.
The one possible exception is the document Relations of the Orthodox Church With the Rest of the Christian World, which seeks to clarify the purpose of the Orthodox Church’s engagement in the ecumenical movement. Because the document censures ecumenical obstructionists, it has seen the lion’s share of criticism from certain self-described traditionalists. – Continue Reading…>
by George Demacopoulos
Politics may make for strange bedfellows but the political alliances forged by many American Christians are worse than strange—they are ironic and self-contradictory.
On the left, partisans draw on Christian teaching to pursue social justice, racial and gender equality, and responsibility for the environment. But in order to have a voice within the political left, Christians align themselves with advocates of unrestricted abortion rights, assisted suicide, and those who (naively) seek to remove religious discourse from the public square. Continue Reading…
By George Demacopoulos
(This essay was originally delivered as a public talk at the June 2015 Fordham/OTSA conference on the upcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. It was part of a panel on Autocephaly and Diaspora.)
For our entire history, secular geographies have dictated the boundaries of episcopal sees and autocephalous churches. The decisions of ecumenical councils, which occasionally affirmed these jurisdictions, were pragmatic efforts to align—and often realign—the ecclesiastical map according to shifting political realities. In short, there is nothing theologically significant about ecclesial borders. Continue reading…