Together Towards Life: An Orthodox Assessment

Petros Vassiliadis*
2012, the year of the official adoption of the New Mission Statement,
entitled Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing
Landscapes, by the Central Committee of WCC, meeting in Crete, Greece,
marks the end of long period of Christian Mission in modern time. The
same year another document, also important from a missiological point
of view, was released: The AGAPE Call for Action, entitled Economy of
Life, Justice, and Peace for All: A Call for Action, finalized at the Global
Forum and AGAPE Celebration in Bogor, Indonesia in June 2012. This
latter document, repeating many ideas of the former WCC document,
was not only addressed to the member-churches of WCC, to all
Christians worldwide, to the people of faith in general, but also to all
partners from the secular establishment (political, social etc.), who share
the common ethical values. Both documents were the main focal points
of reflection in the tenth General Assembly of WCC, which met in Busan
of South Korea on the theme: God of life, lead us to justice and peace (30
October - 8 November, 2013). The Busan General Assembly was the
second in Asia in the history of this privileged ecumenical organization
in the past 65 years of its life, after its historic meeting in New Delhi in
1961,1 which was significant for two reasons: the full integration of the
entire Orthodox Christian family in the ecumenical movement, and the
importance it laid on the inter-faith encounter and dialogue. 2013 was

Dr Petros Vassiliadis, emeritus professor of the Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki, is the President of the Center for Ecumenical, Missiological and
Environmental Studies Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou (CEMES), a former
Orthodox commissioner of WCCs Commission on World Mission and Evangelism
(19982006), and the President of World Conference of Associations of Theological
Institutions/Educators (WOCATI).
1 The WCC, established in 1948 at its 1st Assembly in Amsterdam, Netherlands,
convened one more assembly in Europe in 1968 (its 4th in Uppsala, Sweden), two in
North America (its 2nd in Evanston, United States in 1954, and its 6th in Vancouver
Canada in 1983), two in Africa (its 5th in Nairobi, Kenya in 1975, and its 8th in Harare,
Zimbabwe in 1998) one in Australia (its 7th in Canberra, Australia in 1991), one in Latin
America (its 9th in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006), and one, extremely important, in Asia
(its 3rd in New Delhi, India in 1961).
*

also the year of release of another mission document of great magnitude:

the first personal encyclical of Pope Francis Evangelii Gaudium.2
The interdependence, therefore, of the Orthodox Christianity with the
new paradigm in Christian mission, underlined in all these mission
documents that changed in a positive manner even more radically the
route of our Christian witness to the world, is what initially the Orthodox
expected as the very first step the ecumenical movement should take,
even before the 1910 Edinburgh mission conference, considered in the
West as the beginning of the ecumenical era.3 The famous Circular
Letters of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1902, 1904, and later
in 1920, to all Christian Churches insisted that social and other practical
activities of the Churches should not be postponed until a complete
doctrinal agreement is achieved. Only through cooperation in social
issues and joint commitment in the name of Christ for the sake of
humanity, the circular went on, can a visible unity of the Church be
accomplished.4 Of course, for unspecified reasons the Orthodox interest
in the course of time shifted to an exclusive quest for Church unity,
depriving the most urgent quest for the unity of humankind of the
Orthodox energy and theological reflection.5
This is what all Orthodox committed to ecumenism expected from
Global Christian Mission, and particularly its ecumenical branch, namely
the Commission of World Mission and Evangelism of WCC. In one of the

More on this Papal encyclical and its relation to the New Mission Statement in a
special chapter of a book entitled Ecumenical Missiology 1910-2012, published in the
Regnum series and edited by Kenneth Ross, Oxford 2015.
3 According to Thomas E. FitzGerald, even before the Edinburgh Conference, the
Orthodox Church of Constantinople, known as the Ecumenical Patriarchate, began a
new series of discussions on issues related to church divisions as early as the year 1902.
On June 12 of that year, Patriarch Joachim III addressed an encyclical (The Ecumenical
Movement: An Introductory History, Praeger Publishers: Westport CT 2004, p. 82).
4 Cf. Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1920: Unto the Churches of Christ
Everywhere, Gennadios Limouris (ed.), Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism. Statements,
Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical Movement 1902-1992, WCC, Geneva 1994, pp. 9-11.
As interpreted by the first General Secretary of the WCC and historian Visser't Hooft
this important principle was one of the key requirements of the ecumenical movement
(cf. Minutes and Reports of the Twelfth Meeting of the Central Committee, Rhodes, Greece,
August 19-27, Geneva 1959, pp. 95-97). Cf. also the 12 Unitatis redintegratio, of the
Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism.
5 More on this in Stylianos Tsompanidis, The Ecumenical Process of AGAPE
(Alterative Globalization Addressing People and Earth): An Orthodox Perspective, in A
Testimony to the Nations. A Vigintennial Volume Offered to the Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew, Thessaloniki 2011, pp. 905-923 (in Greek). Also his Orthodoxie und kumene.
Gemeinsam auf dem Weg zu Gerechtigkeit, Frieden und Bewahrung der Schpfung,
Mnster/Hamburg /London 1999, especially chs. ,1.3, ,2, and , 1.
2

last Messages of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches it was clearly

stated that:
Orthodox Christians share responsibility for the contemporary crisis of this planet
with other people, whether they are people of faith or not, because they have
tolerated and indiscriminately compromised on extreme human choices, without
credibly challenging these choices with the word of faith. Therefore, they also have
a major obligation to contribute to overcoming the divisions of the world. 6

These divisions, due to a certain extent to the failure or

shortcomings of modernity in justice, peace, the integrity of creation, and
the world economy, is the result of individualism, one of the pillars of
modernity, and the ensuing absolute, unconditioned, uncontrolled
freedom of the individual in all aspects of life (sexual freedom, legally
protected freedom in accumulating wealth etc.), heralded as the new faith
after the Enlightenment. Looking at the ambivalence of modernity many
Christian theologians and activists (and many more faithful from other
religions, I suppose) insist that there must be a criterion to judge what
should be saved from the values and achievements of modernity and
what should be overcome. For with the free-market economy, especially
in its latest neo-liberal form, the argument goes on, the power balance
changed and modernity from a midwife of human rights became their
murderer. On the basis of the old principles of modernity, the present
world economic system is increasingly falling back into totalitarian
trends. Only if the world listen again carefully and gleans from the
shared wisdom of religions and other ages-old ethical traditions, can the
positive values of the modern paradigm be renewed and revitalized. It
is for this reason that from all religious quarters we speak of liberation of
modernity.7
The most tangible aspect of this liberation has to do with the most
revered in modern culture Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In view
of the last breakdown of the International Convention on Climate Change
in Copenhagen few yew years ago, just to mention one case, it became
clear at least in religious circles that human rights are awfully
ineffective, if they are not accompanied by human responsibilities. The
people of faith nowadays believe that the values and principles that form
part of a common world ethic need not only be publicly declared, they
also require an international legal endorsement.

6 of the Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, disseminated urbi et orbe
by the ultimate authority of the Orthodox Church, namely the Synod of the Primates of
the independent (Autocephalous) Orthodox Churches, issued on 12-12-2008).
7 This is the general message of an international, interdisciplinary, inter-faith
project, which Orthodox institutions participated in, analyzed in the recently published
book by U. Duchrow - F. J. Hinkelammert, Transcending Greedy Money. Interreligious
Solidarity for Just Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2012.
6

The struggle, however, of Christians and faithful of other religions

to promote a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is not just
a diplomatic initiative aiming at introducing in the world agenda moral
values at the expense of the values of modernity and the democratic
achievements of the Enlightenment. It came out of pressure by prophetic
and charismatic figures and theological movements for social and
ecological justice from a faith perspective. Economic justice is a concept
developed by the churches and the ecumenical movement towards
achievement of global justice through advocating for equitable sharing of
resources and power as essential prerequisites for human development
and ecological sustainability. Long before a universal concern (political,
scientific etc.) and advocacy for the dangerous effects of the climate
change was developed, theologians from all religious quarters put a
critical question to their own religious institutions: Will the churches
have the courage to engage with the values of a profit oriented way of
life as a matter of faith, or will they withdraw into the private sphere?
This is the question our churches must answer or loose their very soul,8
declared a WCC consultation of Eastern and Central European Churches
on the problem of economic globalization at the dawn of the 3rd
millennium, that paved the way toward the New Mission Statement
together with the Call for Action, which appeals for building a common
voice, fostering ecumenical cooperation, and ensuring greater coherence
for the realization of an Economy of Life for all.9
And the Orthodox Primates clearly affirmed that:
the gap between rich and poor is growing dramatically due to the financial crisis,
usually the result of manic profiteering by economic factors and corrupt financial
activity, which, by lacking an anthropological dimension and sensitivity, does not
ultimately serve the real needs of mankind. A viable economy is that which
combines efficacy with justice and social solidarity.10

Therefore, the Christian Churches slowly, but steadily, started being

concerned about two interrelated aspects of globalization: ecology and
economy, both stemming from the Greek word oikos (household), and
both carrying inherently the notion of communion (koinonia), so dear and
revered in all Christian denominations, but definitely rooted deeper in
the Orthodox tradition. Therefore, it did not came as a surprise the
immediate response by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and Patriarch
Bartholomew in particular, who has become known all over the world for
his sensitivity for the environment, Gods creation, and the universally

Rogate Mshane, Globalization. WCC-JPC, presented in the Harare WCC Assembly.

The Responsibility of World Religions for Ecology, the World Economic System, and the
International Law.
9 Economy of Life, Justice, and Peace for All: A Call for Action, 23.
10 The Message of the Primates, 8.
8

appreciated activities, like the series of the international ecological

conferences, for which he was given the nickname the Green Patriarch.
On a theoretical level, however, the most significant and crucial
decision, shared now by all religions, was the conviction that from a faith
perspective economy and ecology cannot be dealt with in isolation from
each other. This interrelatedness is in line with a similar conviction in the
ecumenical movement, which for almost half a century had being
examining justice and peace as inseparable entities, even at a time when
the superpowers during the cold war stubbornly were prioritizing them
in differing and opposite ways.
In the wider ecumenical movement Christians, in cooperation with
their partners in the inter-faith dialogue, came to the conclusion that
various aspects of climate, ecological, financial, and debt crises are
mutually dependent and reinforce each other. They cannot be treated
separately anymore.11 The people of faith
discern the fatal intertwining of the global financial, socio-economic, climate, and
ecological crises accompanied in many places of the world by the suffering of
people and their struggle for life. Far-reaching market liberalization, deregulation,
and unrestrained privatisation of goods and services are exploiting the whole
Creation and dismantling social programs and services and opening up economies
across borders to seemingly limitless growth of production.12

Needless to say that faithful from all religions must join forces to this
end, and not fight one another. Hostility between them is a betrayal of
religion. And the battle for achieving a legally established Universal
Declaration of Human Responsibilities cannot be won unless it is fought
by a united front of people of faith. If all religious leaders and religious
communities take actions similar to the ecological initiatives of Patriarch
Bartholomew, a new and better world will certainly rise. And this is
certainly the will of God!
With regard to the New Mission Statement itself13 we should remind
ourselves that Orthodoxy and Mission are two terms that at a first glance
seem quite incompatible; at least to the western historians of mission.14
When in 1910 the historic gathering of missionaries across
denominational boundaries took place in Edinburgh, in order to launch

10 of the Economy of Life, Justice, and Peace for All: A Call for Action.
Ibid. This is something that was painfully felt in Greece by the majority of its
citizens during the recent economic crisis.
13 Most of what follows is based on an earlier article of mine under the title An
Orthodox Assessment of the New Mission Statement, published in IRM 102 (2013), pp.
174-178.
14 More in the collective volume I edited under the title Orthodox Perspectives on
Mission, Regnum Edinburgh Centenary Series 17, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
Regnum Books, Oxford 2013, which was actually prepared as an Orthodox input to the
Busan WCC General Assembly.
11
12

an inter-denominational missionary co-operation, Orthodoxy was

completely marginal. In their deliberations there were only references to
the Oriental (sic) or Greek churches, always within the framework of the
western (mainly Protestant) mission. Even in the following generation no
article on the importance of mission was written by Orthodox
theologians.15 The initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the dawn
of the 20th century, which invited all Christians to address together the
great challenges of the 20th century, only later were brought into the
Christian attention.
Even the encounter of the Orthodox with world Christian mission
has not always been a happy event. The missional dimension of the
Orthodox Church was rediscovered just more than a generation ago
thanks to efforts and the theological arguments of the former moderator
of CWME, and now President of WCC and Primate of the Albanian
Orthodox Church, Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos).16 The
theological discussion originally with Protestantism in the field mission
within the framework of the activities of WCC, and after Vatican II also
with Catholicism, has awakened the importance of mission for the
Orthodox Church universal.
However, a significant contribution to the overall deliberations for an
ecumenical mission theology in the form of a mission statement had to
wait till a missionary awareness of the various autocephali Orthodox
Churches is accomplished. Gradually, in addition to Archbishop
Anastasios, other Orthodox theologians, who were actively involved in
one way or another with the ecumenical movement, and particularly
with the CWME of WCC, most notably in the case of the late Prof. Ion
Bria, made significant contributions to the development of the
contemporary mission theology. The martyria dimension of mission in
the place of an offensive and sometimes arrogant mission, the Trinitarian
importance of the missio dei theology, the liturgical aspect of the Christian
witness in the form of the Liturgy after the liturgy, are only few cases of
the Orthodox contribution to the new ecumenical understanding of
mission in the 20th century. Gleaning from the richness of the Christian
tradition of the undivided Church, as well as from the wealth of their
missionary heritage (especially St. Cyril and Methodius evangelization
More in Athanasios Papathanasiou, Tradition as Impulse for Renewal and
Witness: Introducing Orthodox Missiology in the IRM, International Review of Mission
100:2 (2011), pp. 203215.
16 Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos, Discovering the Orthodox Missionary
Ethos, in Ion Bria (ed.), Martyria-Mission. The Witness of the Orthodox Churches, WCC
Publications, Geneva 1980, pp. 20-29; also in his Mission in Christs Way, HC Orthodox
Press/WCC Publications, Brookline/Geneva 2010, pp. 117-134.
15

of the Slavs, and of Europe in general) the Orthodox not only explained
their different and to a certain extent difficult to understand by western
missiologists and missionaries approach to mission; they also became
invaluable players in the field of contemporary Christian missiology.
During the last 50 years, i.e. from the time of the full integration into
the WCC (and the overall ecumenical movement) of all the Orthodox
Churches, as well as of the International Missionary Council (IMC), in the
3rd General Assembly of WCC in New Delhi, there have been three
statements on mission and evangelism: The 1982 Mission and Evangelism:
An Ecumenical Affirmation, which was officially approved by the Central
Committee of WCC, the 2000 Mission and Evangelism in Unity, adopted
by CWME as a Study Document, and the new mission statement,
entitled Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing
Landscapes, unanimously approved by the WCC Central Committee
held in Crete, Greece on 5 September 2012.
The 1982 mission statement is a traditional mission statement,
reflecting the mostly Protestant understanding of mission, and despite its
translation among other languages also into Greek,17 was never embraced
and wholeheartedly followed by Orthodox missionaries and
missiologists, obviously because the Orthodox did not feel at home with
its theological arguments or the overall aura. This became quite evident
in the attempt to update it with strong Orthodox theological terminology
(and of course substantial Orthodox contribution) in the 2000 Mission and
Evangelism in Unity statement, which met with some criticism from the
Protestant (and particularly Evangelical) missiologists. This was the
reason why it never acquired a universal acceptance and official approval
by the entire WCC in the form of a decision by its Central Committee.
Both the 1982 and the 2000 mission statements attempted to bring
into actuality the traditional (western and eastern respectively)
understanding of mission. However, they both came short with regard to
the adaptation to the rapidly changing landscapes. The third millennium
required concrete affirmations in the emerging new challenges, especially
with regard to the growing pluralistic situation and the immoral world
economic system, and a renewed philosophy and language. In addition,
the widening of the spectrum of Christian missionaries, ranging from the
historically traditional Churches (Orthodox and Catholic), the traditional
mainstream Protestant ecclesial communities, to the new vibrant and
charismatic ones (evangelical and Pentecostal), required a broader appeal
of the statement, even wider than WCC member churches and affiliated
mission agencies, so that all Christian can commit themselves together to
Cf. Ion Bria-Petros Vassiliadis, Orthodox Christian Witness, EKO 1: Tertios Press,
Katerini Greece 1989, pp. 177-200 (in Greek).
17

fullness of life for all, led by the God of Life! It is in this situation that
New Mission Statement Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in
Changing Landscapes, came out.
Of course, any new statement concerning the Christian imperative of
mission would be wholeheartedly welcome from an Orthodox
perspective. This one, however, seems in addition to fulfil some of the
expectations of the Orthodox, especially in areas of crucial theological
importance. And first of all, its Trinitarian, i.e. Pneumatological, basis (
1ff.). The Orthodox always insist that all fundamental aspects of
Christian theology, creation of the entire cosmos by God, redemption in
Christ and salvation through the Church, but beyond her historic
boundaries in the power of the Holy Spirit, etc., are all conceived as the
natural consequence of the inner dynamics of the Triune God, i.e. of the
communion and love that exists within the Holy Trinity. Applied to
mission, this Trinitarian basis can have tremendous effect in helping the
Christian missionaries to avoid imperialistic or confessionalistic
attitudes. The Trinitarian theology points to the fact that God's
involvement in history aims at drawing humanity and creation in general
into this communion with God's very life. The implications of this
assertion for understanding mission are very important: mission does not
aim primarily at the propagation or transmission of intellectual
convictions, doctrines, moral commands etc., but at the transmission of
the life of communion that exists in God. 18
One could also add some further points: the ecclesial dimension of
mission, the implicit liturgical aspect (although not fully articulated in
the direction of the Eucharistic approach to mission, especially in view of
the affirmation in 17), the explicit environmental and inter-faith
consequences of an authentic Christian witness, and the clear connection
between mission and unity,19 are all profound theological aspects, very
familiar to the Orthodox tradition The importance of the inter-faith
dialogue (instead of an aggressive and triumphant mission), on the basis
of the economy of the Spirit (side by side, of course, with the economy of
the Word/Christ),20 and the integrity of creation with the ensuing
environmental missional ethos,21 must certainly please not only the
Orthodox missiologists, but also the theologians engaged in the quest for
I. Bria (ed.), Go Forth in Peace. Orthodox Perspectives on Mission, Geneva 1985, p. 3.
Practically, as well as theologically, mission and unity belong together ( 60)
20 (Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon) Georges Khodr, Christianity in a Pluralistic
World: The Economy of the Holy Spirit, The Ecumenical Review 23 (1971), pp. 118-128.
21 (Ecumenical Patriarch) Bartholonew Archontonis, Encountering the Mystery.
Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today, Doublay: New York/London/Toronto/Sydnay
Auckland 2008. His initiatives became almost characteristic of the Orthodox theology,
and resulted in His All-Holiness becoming known as the Green Patriarch.
18
19

the visible unity of the Church of Christ. To my knowledge, it is for the

first time that a mission statement makes such a strong and direct appeal:
We are called to participate in Gods mission beyond our humancentred goals. Gods mission is to all life and we have to both
acknowledge it and serve it in new ways of mission. We pray for
repentance and forgiveness, but we also call for action now. Mission has
creation at its heart ( 105).
The strong spiritual dimension that permeates the whole document is
yet another positive point the Orthodox can immediately endorse.
Authentic Christian witness is not only in what we do in mission
but how we live out our mission. The church in mission can only be
sustained by spiritualities deeply rooted in the Trinitys communion of
love ( 29). Closely connected is also the spirit of humility and the
imperative of repentance in mission. The cross, says the document, calls
for repentance in light of misuse of power and use of the wrong kind of
power in mission and in the church ( 33). For generations, even
centuries, the triumphant character in doing mission overwhelmed the
humble quintessence of the Christian message and attitude, the Pauline
affirmation that God was pleased through the foolishness of what was
preached to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21).
This brings us to the heart of the new mission statement, namely that
in the 3rd millennium Christian mission, in addition to the proclamation
of the Good News, should address the structural sin, expressed in the
intertwined contemporary crises, the economic and environmental, from
the perspective of the marginalized ( 36ff.): Christians are called to
acknowledge the sinful nature of all forms of discrimination and
transform unjust structures ( 49), and that all missional activity
mustsafeguard the sacred worth of every human being and of the
earth ( 42).
The 3rd millennium, which all Christians are called to witness to the
Gospel in, is characterized by a deep and prolonged crisis, caused by the
world economic system; and their mission cannot be authentically
pursued without addressing this structural evil. In this respect the 2012
AGAPE Call for Action is clearly echoed in one of the final
affirmations:
Economic globalization has effectively supplanted the God of life with mammon,
the god of free-market capitalism that claims the power to save the world through
the accumulation of undue wealth and prosperity. Mission in this context needs to
be counter-cultural, offering alternatives to such idolatrous visions because mission
belongs to the God of life, justice and peace and not to this false god who brings
misery and suffering to people and nature ( 108).

Such a strongly socially-oriented missionary appeal, of course, is not

something new in the recent history of the missionary branch of the
WCC. Some forty years ago, and only in the second decade after the
9

integration of the IMC in the WCC, it was one of the reasons that caused
a dramatic split in the world missionary Christian movement with the
creation of the evangelical Lausanne movement. This time, however,
the profound biblical, theological and spiritual argumentation can hardly
provide any reasonable excuse for theological disagreement on the part
of the evangelicals or the Pentecostals. It may not be accidental that both
these Christian communities the Orthodox are engaged in a very
constructive theological dialogue, not to mention, of course, that since the
time of the 2005 Athens world mission conference (and also in the 2010
Edinburgh centenary celebrations) they were central players.

10