Hunter Review of Bartholomew: Apostle and Visionary by Chryssavgis

Bartholomew: Apostle and Visionary by John Chryssavgis. Nashville, TN: W. Publishing Group, an imprint of Thomas Nelson, 2016 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Foreword by Pope Francis. Interspersed reflections by: Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Benedict XVI, Rabbi David Rosen, Rowan Williams, Al Gore, Jr., Jane Goodall, George Stephanopoulos. Review by Harold D. Hunter published in Pneuma Review (January 18, 2017) at http://pneumareview.com/journey-with-the-orthodox-biography-of-ecumenical-patriarchbartholomew-reviewed-by-harold-d-hunter/ My journey with Orthodox brothers and sisters started with Brighton ’91. With assistance from Monsignor Peter Hocken, I put together this first global conference for Pentecostal scholars. The keynote speaker was Professor Jürgen Moltmann and our presenters were Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Protestant, and Pentecostal. Since that time, I have never put together a conference without Orthodox participation the most recent being Oxford 2012 that featured Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. In June 2009, I was granted a Private Audience with His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. One immediate result was the launching of informal talks between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Pentecostals for the next three years. The co-chairs for these talks mentioned in the biography were Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima and myself. I wrote the following in an initial letter to His All-Holiness proposing the talks: “I am emboldened in this quest by reading in your book Encountering the Mystery that Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II broke new ground in the 16th century ‘Augsburg-Constantinople’ encounter. Dr. Paraskevè Tibbs projects that perhaps Melanchthon himself recast the Augsburg Confession in Greek for the benefit of this significant exchange.” This journey with the Orthodox exposed the Western slant of all my theological training. Although I am indebted to what I learned from Augustine, I came to thirst being enriched also by Chrysostom. As a result, I have become increasingly aware how mainstream media in the West is quick to point to the exploits of Pope Francis while paying less attention to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew even when the two were involved in joint ventures like the 2016 refugee outreach in Lesbos. This media inequality, however, has never drawn criticism from His All-Holiness. This brilliant biography by Archdeacon John Chryssavgis is a clarion call for Christians from around the world to benefit from the apostolic and visionary leadership of 25 years of guiding the Christian East by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The introductory chapter is titled “Just Call Me Bartholomew” taken from the 2009 “60 Minutes” interview of His All-Holiness and so it will be in this article. I was so intrigued by the text that I flew to Boston, MA, for a personal conversation with Archdeacon Chryssavgis. I left that exchange impressed by the scholarly and ecclesiastical acumen of one of the most astute Orthodox theologians that I have come to know personally. When first picking up the biography, one immediately takes notice of the foreword by Pope Francis. What might not be as obvious is the rarity for a Pope to authorize a foreword. It was also heartwarming to hear Archdeacon Chryssavgis’s firsthand account that not only did Pope Francis agree to write the foreword, but he accepted the two-week publisher’s deadline during the Easter celebration! Pope Francis brings passion to the ‘brotherly love’ of apostles Peter and Andrew, the respective founders of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches according to tradition. One note of caution about the book cover which announces 300 million Orthodox adherents around the world. As Chryssavgis explained to me, this count includes not only Eastern Orthodox but Oriental Orthodox. It is also the case that their record keeping is not precise. However, Pentecostals are hardly in a position to say much about this having in just 100 years built a platform that their theological significance is linked to their numbers which they reckon to be second only to Roman Catholics. Chryssavgis smiles: “An extra zero for the glory of God!” This entire volume is must reading for Christians from any tradition as it lays bare the remarkable journey of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew who clearly is one of the most endearing and most respected leaders in global Christianity. Although written in striking prose and various shades of theological poetry, Archdeacon Chryssavgis does not exaggerate the personal virtues of His All-Holiness. I certainly can resonate with the colorful description of how His All-Holiness receives a wide range of guests and makes all of them feel welcome during these exchanges. In 2014, I took International Pentecostal Holiness Presiding Bishop Dr. AD Beacham, Jr., to the Phanar to celebrate Pascha at the Patriarchal Church of St. George. Despite many long services during Holy Week with some that lasted past midnight, His All-Holiness welcomed Bishop and Mrs. Beacham and myself in his office. One of the most memorable moments was Bartholomew telling Bishop Beacham that sitting on the patriarchal throne - that has suffered greatly since the collapse of the Byzantine Empire - has taught him the true meaning of patience. As Chryssavgis points out, Bartholomew has an icon of Saint Hypomone (“patience”) in his office. Those who saw Bartholomew interviewed by Bob Simon on “60 Minutes” (2009) will remember that Bartholomew said that he felt he had been ‘crucified’ by the social political reality inherent with life at the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the Orthodox ‘Jerusalem,’ namely Constantinople (Istanbul). For the benefit of readers of Pneuma Review, the original audience for this article, I have chosen to highlight four primary areas of interest: the 2016 Holy and Great Council, primacy, ecumenism (including dialogue with other religions), and care for God’s creation. These topics line up nicely with Bartholomew’s speech on the day of his enthronement which focused on theology and liturgy, Orthodox unity and cooperation, ecumenism, interfaith dialogue, and protection of the environment. Bartholomew is counted as the 269th successor to Saint Andrew and has served one of the longest tenures of any Ecumenical Patriarch. Although Chryssavgis has given us an exquisite treatment of Bartholomew, I will not shy away from questions raised by those Pentecostals who identify with the Pentecostal World Fellowship. #1 – 2016 Holy and Great Council One of the thorny issues in reviewing this expert volume on a key global Christian leader is that the publisher’s deadline was prior to the actually convening of the 2016 Holy and Great Council in Crete. There is then occasional distance between various optimistic projections about Crete 2016 versus what actually happened. Although he recognized this, JC did not feel in the least phased by any such limitation. That reality aside, Archdeacon Chryssavgis contends that His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who alone is vested with the authority to call such a Pan-Orthodox council, held the Holy and Great Council together in that 10 of the 14 autocephalous churches did find their way to Crete in June 2016. Chryssavgis is quite right to press the point that none of Bartholomew’s predecessors were able to actually convene the Holy and Great Council even though over 50 years were devoted to this effort and planning. It is also true that Bartholomew would be constrained by the January 2016 decision made by all 14 autocephalous churches meeting in Chambésy, outside Geneva, Switzerland where all the Orthodox primates unanimously agreed to the date and venue. At least one can say that Bartholomew cannot be faulted on this point, although some among the four dissident churches would disagree especially Russia who has said that all 14 churches must be present to validate the proceedings. How did Bartholomew react after the council? His first words to Archdeacon Chryssavgis were “I did what was in my hands to do, what I was called to do. The rest is in God’s hands.” This was expressed as something of a spiritual surprise that he had accomplished his charge, irrespective of the criticism of others. What was planned by all together and decided by all together is what happened even if not all ended up coming. There were many who hailed Crete 2016 as a great success, while a minority positioned themselves as though the council did not even happen. But it is now in the history books; it is now for later generations to assess. Bartholomew had been very direct with Patriarch Kirill in the January 2016 meeting about whether Moscow consented to Crete 2016. Moscow pledged its participation at the time, but its retraction came at the 11th hour. Were there others forces at play? What relation, if any, might there be to the fact that while in Crete Chryssavgis’s computer was being hacked on a daily basis from Kiev and Moscow? Bartholomew had accomplished his calling and charge. In Archdeacon Chryssavgis’s estimation, had he given in to the proposal of postponing the council then it would never have convened. Bartholomew secured the agreement of the 14 autocephalous churches, but only 10 showed up. Perhaps the next council will bring together 11 or 12 churches, predicts Chryssavgis; but this was a vital step, an historical event. It was historical because there is no one like the emperor in the first millennium who would mandate attendance. Today, each church has its own agenda, its own authority. Serbia, for example, wanted the planning for the Great Council to mature until it looked more professional, much like Vatican II; but Albania rightly retorted that the Orthodox churches should accept with humility that this is as good as they could do right now. After all, as Chryssavgis observed, councils are needed when there are problems, not when things are peaceful; so there was no need to defer to an indefinite calendar. Chryssavgis emphasized that no one could ever criticize Bartholomew of controlling the conversation at the council; he stuck by the agenda but allowed everyone to speak. His conviction, says Chryssavgis, is that all churches are equal: Moscow (the largest, wealthiest and strongest) has the same voice and the same vote as Albania (the smallest, the poorest, and the weakest). That is Orthodox ecclesiology, remarked Chryssavgis. It would also be the case that Bartholomew’s directness was able to dismiss notions like that by the Archbishop of Greece that Bartholomew had expansionist intentions in the “new lands” of Greece; Bartholomew’s forthrightness dispelled suspicion from the Greek bishops and attracted their positive involvement in the council. Archdeacon Chryssavgis, among others leading Eastern Orthodox voices, refers to the Holy and Great Council that met in Crete as a historic Pan-Orthodox Council unlike anything seen by the Orthodox for at least one century, if not an entire millennium. However, Oriental Orthodox were not part of this General Council. It should be noted that the World Council of Churches reserves the term inter-Orthodox when referring to all 21st Century Orthodox churches. However, the published text includes only a brief update on the bottom of page 172 to adjust parts of what had been projected on Crete 2016. There are ongoing conversations like that at the November 2016 meeting of the American Academy of Religion about how to evaluate what was accomplished at Crete 2016, but Bartholomew’s perspective was that he convened the council on the date and at the place agreed to by the 14 autocephalous churches as late as January 2016. #2 - Primacy The book highlights strains among the 14 autocephalous churches in particular the ongoing tension between Constantinople and Moscow. The book notes that the Ecumenical Patriarch alone can declare a church autocephalous. Thus the 1960 granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of America by the Patriarch of Moscow is deemed uncanonical. At the same time, the four dissenting autocephalous churches that stayed away from Crete 2016 give fodder to those outsiders who view Eastern Orthodox Churches as simply a federation of churches. It would seem there is not unanimity among the Orthodox on the notion that “first among equals” has real consequences even when qualified as neither commanding or compelling. Chryssavgis himself warns about autocephaly of ethnophyletism. One advantage for the Ecumenical Patriarchate is that it lacks the kind of nationalistic political pressure of many other Orthodox Patriarchates. In my interview, Chryssavgis expertly pointed out that while no tradition regardless of its ecclesiology is spared inward tensions, the Orthodox model that allows open conflict of the kind associated with the ‘Third Rome’ (Moscow) over against perceived encroachments like the “Ravenna Document” – which has been marginalized of late - is obviously not hidden from public view. Chryssavgis goes so far to say that this is the way the conciliar model looks and it should be appreciated even by those who confer primacy on the Bishop of Rome or any other like hierarch. Chryssavgis stands fast by the notion that the history of the church is never without synods and primates, a point that has been challenged by Pentecostal theologians such as myself. In my interview with Chryssavgis, the selection of the next Ecumenical Patriarch was clarified in terms of the composition of the Holy and Sacred Synod at the Ecumenical Patriarch that puts forward a list to be reviewed by the Turkish government before final decisions are made by the Synod. This review is not a routine matter as the Turkish government has – although rarely - removed names from the list in the past. This may explain the keen interest shown in making Athenagoras available for election so that he was flown from the USA to Turkey on USA President Harry Truman’s Air Force One and granted Turkish citizenship before disembarking at the Atatürk Airport. Since the 11th Century, the deciding Synod of 12 were all Greeks who met in Constantinople. Under the leadership of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, now eleven of twelve bishops of the Synod come from a variety of countries with no particular part of the world intentionally favored in the rotation. #3 - Ecumenism Archdeacon Chryssavgis is justified in making much of Bartholomew’s commitment to ecumenism and dialogues with other religions. On this point, certainly Bartholomew must be rewarded for having extended a hand of friendship to Pentecostals who are most often cast as proselytizers of the Orthodox faithful in the Christian East. As Chryssavgis points out, however, Bartholomew has paid a price for his commitment of ecumenism which should spur supporters of Bartholomew to speak up firmly but with sensitivities to how one may be heard by various Orthodox hierarchs. Chryssavgis makes a poignant plea on Bartholomew’s behalf when it comes to conducting a ministry of reconciliation. Chryssavgis explained to me that he finds a parallel here with St. John Chrysostom who was open to the church of Antioch, but also Alexandria when under Cyril challenged Constantinople’s primacy. Chrysostom received delegates from Alexandria which would have generated controversy. For his part, Bartholomew has had to endure being labelled a heretic or traitor by those who cling to a rigid narrow interpretation of Tradition. This kind of response is not unknown to Pentecostal pioneer ecumenists such as myself who continue to seek to bring a Pentecostal presence to any table that welcomes such a voice. Pentecostals will find it of interest that Chryssavgis claims that Bartholomew turned the World Council of Churches Faith & Order Commission toward the ‘Apostolic Faith’ project. I remember publishing the first Pentecostal response to such an ecumenical document and arguing that Pentecostals were innately drawn to discussions about apostolicity. Pentecostals can also resonate with Chryssavgis’s description of Bartholomew’s take on ecumenism this way: “… he shuts the door to any caricature of Christian unity as sweepingly blending all Christian teachings into one or as superficially rendering everyone uniform. Dialogue and reconciliation do not imply parity among denominations or unity as confessional adjustment. Nor again do they entail acquiescence to doctrinal relativism or resignation to denominational minimalism.” Bartholomew’s support and engagement of other religion is authentic and well documented but Archdeacon Chryssavgis magnificently weaves together the most important threads for us. Chryssavgis tells us that Bartholomew falls back on the apophatic notion about the nature and being of God not being the exclusive domain of any one religion. In his own book Encountering the Mystery, Bartholomew invoked “The Spirit blows where it wills” to champion dialogue with various religions particularly the three linked to Abraham. On the ecumenical front, there is much rich material in the book but I want to single out Bartholomew’s critical role with Roman Catholics as this reveals much about what goes to the heart of Orthodox ecumenism. In fact, no Orthodox dialogue receives more attention in this biography than the various forms of engagement with Roman Catholics with some little-known stories about Vatican II revealed. A key point emerges in these pages when dealing in excoriating detail how these fascinating dramas played out. One cannot read this account without realizing that dialogue with the Vatican is supreme because it holds out the possibility of ‘full communion’. This point is highlighted in various ways such as pointing to the time during the first millennium when the churches were united but only in the 20th century were the mutual anathemas of the 11th Century revoked and that simultaneously by the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. More specifically one would say that anathemas flowing from the Great Schism of 1054 were not resolved until 1965. A snapshot of this ‘dialogue of love’ is captured by pointing to a marble inscription written in Latin and Greek above the entrance to St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome which reads as follows: “For the reconciliation of full communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, there was a meeting of prayer in this basilica between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras on October 26, 1967 and between Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Demetrios I on December 6, 1987. To God alone is due honor and worship to the ages.” Archdeacon Chryssavgis rightly points to the forward movement particularly set in motion by Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. This is so momentous that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis celebrated the 50th anniversary of the historic 1964 Jerusalem event achieved by Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras with Pope Paul VI. Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew commemorated this event in Jerusalem in 2014. Bartholomew has advanced relations with the Holy See to the point that he was on hand for the inauguration of Pope Francis on March 19, 2013. Seeking to right a significant wrong perpetuated by the Crusades, it was Bartholomew who in 2004 secured from Pope John Paul II the return of the relics of the most renowned archbishops of Constantinople – Saint Gregory the Theologian (329-389) and Saint John Chrysostom (347-407). I have venerated these saints when visiting the Patriarchal Church of St. George at the Phanar. When Roman Catholic and Orthodox representatives together recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, they revert to the original version of the fourth-century creed which means omitting the later Roman Catholic interpolation of filioque. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew joined Pope Francis in jointly inviting Peres and Abbas, presidents of Israel and Palestine, to the Vatican in 2014. Yet again Russia comes into the picture particularly in relationship with the Uniate, or Eastern Catholic, churches specifically in the Ukraine. While, therefore, one may depict the differences as in decline, key ecumenical issues yet remain between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. #4 – Care for God’s Creation Pentecostals in the USA who constantly measure themselves against magisterial Protestants, need to look closely at the record of the Green Patriarch. Bartholomew has made creation care a hallmark of his tenure as Ecumenical Patriarch. Chryssavgis is more than justified to devote an entire chapter to this critical theological issue. Media coined then conferred the title “Great Patriarch” in recognition of Bartholomew’s unique contribution. This unpretentious yet telling title was recognized in the White House in 1997 by Al Gore, vice president of the United States. True to this landmark distinction, Bartholomew in 1997 would equate abuse of God’s creation as sin. This public stand was rightly lauded by environmental activists from around the world. The July 2006 “blessing of the waters” on the Amazon River attracted international media attention. Bartholomew was welcomed as “the Patriarch of the Amazon”. His All-Holiness responded by enlarging on the significance of the baptism of Christ in the Jordan River: “In our encounter with the indigenous peoples of this region, we witnessed and felt their profound sense of the sacredness of creation and of the bonds that exist between all living things and people Thanks to them, we understand more deeply that, as creatures of God, we are all in the same boat: ‘estamos no mesmo barco!’” It should be emphasized that Bartholomew sought to bring accountability for God’s creation first to the Orthodox. In 1992 soon after his election as Ecumenical Patriarch, he brought together an unprecedented Synaxis of Primates at the Phanar. All the assembled prelates endorsed September 1 as a day of “Pan-Orthodox prayer for God’s creation.” Bartholomew put it this way when clarifying the scripture phrase “stewards of creation”: “… we are called to offer creation back to God as priests, just as the priest in the Eucharist offers the bread and wine to God, who in turn transforms them into his body and blood for the life of the whole world. So, rather than speaking of becoming ‘stewards of creation,’ it may more helpful to speak of becoming ‘priests of creation’ in accordance with our donation and vocation to be part of the ‘royal priesthood’.” One final thought. As a constant traveler who has visited more than 80 countries albeit as a simple Pentecostal pilgrim, I cannot overstate the contribution of His All-Holiness to my spiritual pilgrimage and other Pentecostals fortunate enough to have been in his presence. If this review sends cascades of light on a beloved and extraordinary global Christian figure, then let the glow radiate to our triune God!