The worst Hopehagen stunt was that letter issued by the EP saying that passing Copehagen was repentance in action.

The communications revolution affects the Church too. A lot of people don’t understand that yet, however — to their peril, ISTM.

An excellent analysis Father. Although I want to believe things are better they are probably not.

Here is another thing to consider. The Taize letter probably does not get the scrutiny by special ethnic and political interests in-house that other EP statements do. Remember you do not see this letter on any of the websites that 79th Street manages. It is amazing 79th filters EP statements to the point Orthodox Christians find these statements not on their own websites but on Protestant and ecumenical sites.

I would also agree with you Father than while we may all hold out hope for change -we also have to be honest. The same people who have given us all type of shenanigans are still the people who peddle influence at the Phanar and GOA. I do think these people are becoming more aware of the criticism out there and may refine their words and marketing but there is no reason to expect any substantial change in the coming year.

What this indicates is that Constantinople is more sensitive to criticism and more aware of their tenuous place in the Orthodox world than they let on. Not until the Hellenism as ethnic identity apologetic is abandoned can anyone be sure that a shift in thinking has really taken place. More likely is that the apologetic will be promulgated with a bit more finesse than we saw with Fr. Elpidophoros’ clumsy mishandling at Holy Cross (although it remains an open question whether such finesse can be mastered). If you see it promulgated in-house (which is the only place you will see it from here on out, in my opinion), rest assured nothing has changed except the approach.

Of course this begs the larger question of whether such an approach can ultimately succeed. I don’t think it can. Subsuming the universal principles of Hellenism to ethnic identity can’t coexist with the Gospel imperative to preach Christ to all nations. It simply won’t work. It can only lead to the elevation of personages who draw their putative authority from an institutional structure that will necessarily become increasingly authoritarian.

So while I can understand the relief some might feel seeing the Ecumenical Patriarch finally address larger social concerns than, say, defense of the Greek language (which is worth defending, by the way), take a closer look at the language he employed while speaking at Taizé. Yes, the fall of the Berlin wall was an example of the mobilization of Christians, but it was much more than that. It started with the rediscovery of Christ in ways that led to the repudiation of the Marxist man in Poland years before, largely through the words and example of Pope John Paul II, as well as the brilliant diplomacy of Pres. Ronald Reagan and PM Margaret Thatcher. It was not a mere political mobilization, it was the working of God through an oppressed people.

And, yes, consumerism and everything else on the list are grave social ills. But the rediscovery of authentic humanity will occur only with the rediscovery of Christ whose words can actually be found in the foundational narrative of Western Civilization. Secularism binds one to the stomach, but words can penetrate even this grave enslavement. But a program against consumerism won’t heal the ill because it cannot uncover the narrative that points to the ultimate narrative that, once preached and heard, reveals the Healer.

The words that the Patriarch spoke at Taizé, like his words to Americans several months back, are bound to the limits of the political discourse. Europeans and Americans need to hear more than the vocabulary of social, economic, or political justice. They need to hear the Gospel.

From where I sit, Hellenism as ethnicity is alive and well. All that has changed is that political and cultural reality that gave birth to the apologetic five hundred years ago does not exist anymore. The present effort is merely the attempt to universalize the apologetic into a global context. Yet the policy had its costs even half a century ago as Sir Steven Runciman noted in Nationalism and Greek Orthodoxy.

Exactly right, Michael. When those in the Church abandon their God-given mandate, they are both disobedient and ineffective (which, I know, is almost redundant). This is not to deny the importance of justice (though that is almost never what they really mean by that term) or charity or outreach. Far from it. Individuals may indeed be called to such efforts. (William Wilberforce would be a good example.) But the focus of the Church as Church must always be to serve God and His holy kingdom. The moment she follows some other Light in the name of expediency or effectiveness, she abandons her first and true love. This is why Mother Theresa rightly eschewed any concern with “results.” Samuel Gregg wrote an excellent article last month entitled Not So Liberating: The Twilight of Liberation Theology that directly addresses this very issue. In it he noted that

there’s little question that liberation theology was a disaster for Catholic evangelization. There’s a saying in Latin America that sums this up: “The Church opted for the poor, and the poor opted for the Pentecostals.”

In short, while many Catholic clergy were preaching class war, many of those on whose behalf the war was supposedly being waged decided that they weren’t so interested in learning about Marx or listening to a language of hate. They simply wanted to learn about Jesus Christ and his love for all people (regardless of economic status). They found this in many evangelical communities.

As Fr. Alexander Schmemann said in “For the Life of the World” (paraphrase) The Church is not here to help, she is here to save.

We must resist the urge to lapse into chiliastic utopianism or Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior is forgotten.