outreach introduced by Archbishop Anastasios of Albania

3 ‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’. A code phrase exhorting to missionary outreach introduced by Archbishop Anastasios of Albania

Nikolaos Tsirevelos

Adjunct Lecturer of Christian Education and Homiletics, Department of Theology & Culture, University College Logos, Tirana Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Thessaly Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Western Macedonia

Corespondence:

e-mail: ntsirevelos@hotmail.com

Abstract

‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’ refers to the Eucharistic experience that moves Christians, when they leave the church at the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy, to share the gift they received so that this world may be transformed into the Kingdom of God. First used by Anastasios Yannoulatos, then Bishop of Androussa and now Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and All Albania, at Etchmiadzin (Armenia) in 1975. The expression ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ has since been adopted by many theologians to signify the Church’s multifaceted mission and witness of service in the world. With this succinct and felicitous phrase, its originator called the faithful to a perpetually Eucharistic attitude in their daily life, which expresses the passion and struggle for the transformation of the world into the Church of Christ. Our study presents the theological roots distilled into this now familiar phrase, as found in the writings of Anastasios Yannoulatos in the 1960s and afterwards. ‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’ is an exhortation to missionary outreach which originated with Archbishop Anastasios and which, coupled with Christ’s resurrectional command to teach all nations, shaped his missionary witness and ecclesiastical diaconate.

Keywords:

Archbishop Anastasios, Liturgy, Homiletics, Orthodox mission. Citation:

Tsirevelos N. ‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’. A code phrase exhorting to missionary outreach introduced by Archbishop Anastasios of Albania. Theology & Culture. 2022; 5: 49-69. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12899.43046

Acatchphrase frequently employed in recent decades in theological literature, oral discussions and on other occasions is the missionary exhortation to ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’. This code phrase began to spread through the ecumenical movement in the middle of the 1970s, especially in World Mission circles. First used by the present Archbishop of Albania Anastasios, it was adopted by other Orthodox theologians to emphasise the immediacy of the relationship between liturgical life and Christian mission and the carrying of the Gospel to the nations. Its meaning was also associated with the diaconal ministry of the Church in the community as an extension and continuation of the participation of the faithful in the sacrament of Holy Communion.

First and foremost, the phrase ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ is a clear and simple declaration that the Holy Eucharist lies at the heart of Christian life. Christians draw strength and inspiration from sharing in the mystery of Holy Communion, so that they may afterwards selflessly bear witness to the presence of Christ in the world and at the same time face up to evil in any form1 .

“Liturgy after the Liturgy” is an easily-remembered exhortation to missionary outreach, which encapsulates the Christian’s obligation to step out of the temple and go into the world to share with those near and far the gifts received from partaking in the Holy Eucharist. The message was encoded by Anastasios Yannoulatos in the 1970s at a conference of the World Council of Churches and was later used by other theologians in the context of the ecumenical movement2. More recently it appeared in the Message and the Encyclical of

1 The scriptural roots of the concept of “liturgy after the Liturgy” may be traced in, for example, the passages Jn 13:1-17, Lk. 22:24-30, Mt. 28:19, Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-37. In the patristic literature one might cite: Letter to Diognetus, PG 5, 713B(88). Ignatius, To the Ephesians, PG 5, 656A. St John Chrysostom, Homily 25 on Matthew, PG 57, 331C. Maximus Confessor, Mystagogy, PG 91, 668D-669B. Nikolaos Kabasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 21, PG 150, 456D. 2 Indicatively: Schmemann, A. (1979). “The Missionary Imperative,” Church, World, Mission: Reflections on Orthodoxy and the West. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 215. Gill, D. (1983), Gathered for Life: Official Report of the WCC 6th Assembly, Geneva: WCC Publ., 35. Oleksa, M.(1983). “Overwhelmed by Joy”, International Review of Mission, 72, 415-20. Anchimiuk, J. (1983). “Ministry of the Eucharistic Liturgy and the Ministry of the Liturgy after the Liturgy”, in G. Tsetsis (ed.), Orthodox Thought, Geneva: WCC Publ., 31. Βασιλειάδης, Π. (1989). Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Μαρτυρία, Κατερίνη: Τέρτιος, 6576. Scott, E. (1991), Nairobi to Vancouver, Geneva: WCC, 93. Kinnamon, M. (1991), Signs of the Spirit: Official Report of the WCC 7th Assembly, Geneva: WCC Publ., 119. Blyth, M. (1992). “Liturgy after the Liturgy: An ecumenical Perspective”, The Ecumenical Review, Vol.

the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete (2016), texts of pan-Orthodox acceptance and universal in scope. The editor of the Message, it is worth noting, was Archbishop Anastasios; the positions on mission expressed in the Encyclical are also his. In contemporary missionary literature especially the phrase is commonly attributed to the Romanian priest Fr Ion Bria3, who was an associate of Anastasios Yannoulatos on the WCC Commission on World Mission and thoroughly acquainted with his theological opinions and written texts and who by the mid 1970s had appropriated this eloquent phrase and was using it sedulously in his published work as his own4 .

This present study aims to trace the origins of the phrase ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ and how it spread to other writers. It will also study the Archbishop’s earlier writings in an attempt to present his theological thinking on the basis for witness to the Gospel in the world. From the late 1950s theological justification of apostolic mission formed the natural substrate from which sprang this cadenced, expressively elegant and theologically pithy exhortation, which also stamped Anastasios Yannoulatos’ entire diaconate within the Church.

44, no 1, 73-79. Keshishian, A. (1992). Orthodox Perpsectives on Mission, Oxford: Regnum Lynx, 22-30. Bria, I. & Bobrinskoy, B. (1993). “Prière du coeur et eucharistie”, in Ioan I. Ica (ed.), Person and Communion: Homage to Fr Dumitru Staniloae, Sibiu, 631. Clapsis, E. (2004). “The Eucharist as Missionary Event in a Suffering World,” Orthodoxy in Conversation: Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 192-193. Βασιλειάδης, Π. (2005). Lex orandi, Θεσσαλονίκη: Ίνδικτος, 22-28. Τσομπανίδης, Σ. (2009). Μετά-Λειτουργία. Η Ορθόδοξη συμμετοχή στην κοινή χριστιανική μαρτυρία για δικαιοσύνη, ειρήνη και ακεραιότητα της δημιουργίας, Θεσσαλονίκη: Π. Πουρνάρας, 422. According to Prof. Sonea, ‘The concept had an important impact on the development of some important missionary documents, such as: Martyria-Mission. The Witness of the Orthodox Churches Today (WCC, Geneva 1980), Go Forth in Peace. Orthodox Perspectives in Mission (WCC, Geneva 1982 and 1986), and a few chapters under the section about the Eucharist of the BEM ecumenical document. WCC 10th Assembly from Busan, 2013, adopted the missionary document Together Towards Life, in which “liturgy after the Liturgy” becomes the Orthodox contribution to the way mission is understood at an ecumenical level’, Sonea, C. (2020), “The ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ and Deep Solidarity. The Orthodox Understanding of Christian Witness and its Implications for Human Society”, Mission Studies 37, 452-477. 3 Indicatively: Grdzelidze, T. (2011), “Ecumenism, Orthodoxy and Education”, in J. A. McGuckin (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy Christianity, New York: A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication, 211. 4 The first written reference occurs in Bria, I. (1978), “The liturgy after the Liturgy”, International Review of Mission, Vol. 67, no 265, 86. Cf. Bria, I. (1986), Go Forth in Peace: Orthodox Perspectives on Mission. Geneva: WCC, 3. Bria, I. (1996), The Liturgy after the Liturgy. Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective, Geneva: WCC Publ.. Bria, I. (2002), “My pilgrimage in Mission”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 26, Iss. 2, 74-77.

1. First formulation of the exhortation to ‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’

The phrase was first heard in 1975 at a conference of the World Council of Churches at Etchmiadzin (Armenia) on “Confessing Christ through the Liturgical Life of the Church” when, as Secretary of the CWE Desk for Orthodox Studies and Relations, the then Bishop of Androussa Anastasios Yannoulatos quoted a passage from a sermon he had delivered on the Second Sunday in Lent in 1963, feast day of St Gregory Palamas, in Athens, to the members of the Christian Union of Scientists. Reiterating the necessity for the Eucharistic and liturgical experience to be carried over into everyday life, he said that:

“This event (of the Divine Liturgy) must not be lost as an instantaneous emotion, but the Liturgy must be extended into daily life. And all of life must be transfigured into a liturgy. Our office, our altar, our factory or our home becomes our temple; our work becomes our liturgy, where our soul and body will be offered as ‘a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1)” (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 94-95).

At the close of the Etchmiadzin Conference, Bishop Anastasios used these words from an earlier sermon of his to stress the importance of the Divine Liturgy, and especially the dynamic potential of the liturgical experience in everyday life, codifying his exhortation in the phrase ‘liturgy after Liturgy’. He said:

“The Liturgy must to be continued in the personal, everyday situations. Each of the faithful is called upon to continue a personal ‘liturgy’ on the secret altar of one’s own heart, to realize a living proclamation of the good news ‘for the sake of the whole world’. Without this continuation the Liturgy remains incomplete. Since in the Eucharistic event we are incorporated into Him who came to serve the world and to be sacrificed for it, we have to express in concrete diaconia, in community life, our new being in Christ, the Servant of all. The sacrifice of the Eucharist must be extended in personal sacrifices for the people in need, for the brothers for whom Christ died. (…), and efforts aimed at liberating human

persons from all demonic structures of injustice, exploitation, agony, loneliness, and at creating a real communion of persons in love” (Υannoulatos, 2010, p. 95-96).

In this passage Bishop Anastasios Yannoulatos essentially stresses the dynamic potential of the sacrament of Holy Communion in every manifestation of human life, while at the same time linking the present with the anticipation of the Kingdom of God. The battle and constant struggle of Christian believers to transform this world into a new one (Rev. 21:5b) has Eucharistic roots. In this theological idea, present and last things (eschata) meet in the Christian’s Eucharistic approach to life and witness to the Gospel in the community.

In a subsequent portion of this address Bishop Anastasios set out the basic lines upon which various theologians would later elaborate the dimensions of this ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’5. Concretely, he emphasised that:

“This personal everyday attitude becomes ‘liturgical’ in the sense that: (a) it draws power from the participation in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist through which we receive the grace of the liberating and unifying Holy Spirit. (b) It constitutes the best preparation for a new, more conscientious and existential participation in the Eucharist. (c) It is a living expression –in terms clear to everyboby- of real transformation of men and women in Christ” (Υannoulatos, 2010: p. 96).

Fragments of this address, which Anastasios Yannoulatos delivered at Etchmiadzin, were published by the Romanian theologian and protopresbyter Fr Ion Bria6, who succeeded him at the WCC. Over the next several years Fr

5 For the elaboration of the code phrase ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ by various theologians, omitting however any acknowledgment of Archbishop Anastasios as its originator, see Edwards, G. (2018 May 21-25), “Orthodox Christian Witness to the Third Millennium: Improving the mission document”, Presented at the Eighth International Conference of Orthodox Theology, hosted by the Faculty of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. Retrieved from http://www.orthodoxconference.theosch.auth.gr/keimena_final/33_Edwards_Gregory.pdf 6 See also the relevant statement by Athanasios Papathanasiou, who says that “The formula ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ was first articulated by Anastasios Yannoulatos in 1975 in Etchmiadzin, Armenia, and since then, along with the valuable contribution of Ion Bria, has become an established phrase that is used often in the IRM”, in Papathanasiou, A. (2013), “Tradition as impulse for renewal and witness: Introducing Orthodox missiology in the IRM”, Vassileiades, P. (ed.), Orthodox Perpectives on Mission, Oxford: Regnum Books International, p.164. See also Koukoura, D. (2014), “Evangelism in ‘Christian’ Societies, An Orthodox hom-

Bria frequently used the phrase ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ at various ecumenical meetings, in addresses and discussions, in an article in the widely read International Review of Mission (Bria, 1978, p. 86-90), and more specifically in a book published under that title by the World Council of Churches (Bria, 1996). After having deliberately concealed the authorship of this emblematic code phrase, the Romanian cleric was compelled to restore the truth, in the following terms: “One comment which in fact summarizes the original debate was sent by Bishop Anastasios Yannoulatos, professor of the University of Athens, which follows in revised form” (Bria, 1978, p. 86), after which he cites Archbishop Anastasios’ text.

More specifically, in his book The Liturgy after the Liturgy Fr. Ion Bria (1996, p. 20) writes7: “This was further developed at a consultation in Etchmiadzin,

iletic approach”. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/37815940/Evangelism_in_Christian_Societies. Cf also Koukoura, D. (2018) “Rievangelizzione: una procedura miletica complessa”. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/37819346/RIEVANGELIZZAZIONE_pdf. Metropolitan Geevarghese Mor Coorilos, for his part, states that the phrase ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ was popularised by Fr Ion Bria, without mentioning Archbishop Anastasios as its originator. “Mission as liturgy before Liturgy and as contestation”, P. Vassileiades (ed.), Orthodox Perpectives on Mission, Oxford: Regnum Books International,175. Cf also the words of Ngige Njoroge, K. J. (2013) in “Incarnation as a mode of Orthodox mission: International Orthodox mission – Imposing culture and inculturation”, P. Vassileiades (ed.), Orthodox Perpectives on Mission, Regnum Books International, 249: ‘This is why, according to Archbishop Anastasios, and later Fr Bria, the “liturgy after the liturgy” starts with Eucharistic worship’. Professor Sonea, too, recognises that the phrase originated with Archbishop Anastasios and became known through the works of other theologians, such as Ι. Bria. See Sonea, C. (2020), “The ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ and Deep Solidarity. The Orthodox Understanding of Christian Witness and its Implications for Human Society”, Mission Studies 37, p. 458. Fr V. Mosoiu expresses himself in similar terms, noting that ‘The phrase “liturgy after the Liturgy” appears in the vocabulary of the Ecumenical Council of Churches in the early 1970s, being linked to the name of the current archbishop of Albania, Anastasios Yannoulatos. At the World Missionary Conference on Salvation today (Bangkok, 1972), he insisted on the sense of tradition and the dual movement in which the Church trains its faithful by worship: the public assembly for the Eucharistic Liturgy and other rites, namely the sending to the Christian testimony. The concept was resumed and deepened on other occasions by Orthodox theologians, the most important moments being remembered by Father Bria’ (p. 157). He then goes on to point out that the theologians who use the phrase ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ fail to make any distinction between the theological positions of Archbishop Anastasios and those of Fr Ion Bria: ‘Interestingly, almost all of these authors refer to the expression without distinguishing between the ideas of Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos and those of Professor Ion Bria - yet another proof of the similarity of the vision and ideas of the two great Orthodox missionary theologians’ (p. 160). Mosoiu, V. (2019).“‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’ as the missionary-ecumenical reference point of father Ion Bria’s thinking. A Critical Perspective”, Revista Teologica, Issue 1, 149-166. 7 I cite the entire passage, so that Bria’s reference to Archbishop Anastasios of Albania may be perfectly clear.

Armenia, in 1975, on ‘Confessing Christ through the Liturgical of the Church Today’. Its report noted that the Eucharistic liturgy has implications not only for the being and identity of the church but also for its mission in the world [The Orthodox text follows at this point] (...) Out of this idea of the extension of the liturgical celebration to life of the faithful in the world came the concept of the ‘liturgy after the liturgy’. The dynamics of the liturgy go beyond the boundaries of the Eucharistic assembly to serve the community at large. The Eucharistic liturgy is not escape into an inner realm of prayer, a pious turning away from social realities, rather it calls and sends the faithful to celebrate ‘the sacrament of the brother’ outside the temple in the public market place, where the cries of the poor and marginalized are heard. Anastasios Yannoulatos, then a professor at the University of Athens, underscored the necessary link between taking part ‘in the great event of liberation from sin and of communion with Christ’ and making evident ‘this transfiguration of our little being into a member of Christ’ in daily life: ‘Each of the faithful is called upon to continue a personal ‘liturgy’ on the secret altar of his own heart, to realize a living proclamation of the good news ‘for the sake of the whole world’. Without this continuation the liturgy remains incomplete… The sacrifice of the Eucharist must be extended in personal sacrifices for the people in need, the brothers for whom Christ died… The continuation of liturgy in life means a continuous liberation from the powers of the evil that are working inside us, a continual reorientation and openness to insights and efforts aimed at liberating human persons from all demonic structures of injustice, exploitation, agony, loneliness, and at creating a real communion of persons in love’. Anastasios describes this everyday personal attitude as ‘liturgical’ because (1) it is energized by participation in the Eucharist, (2) it constitutes the best preparation for a more conscious participation in the Eucharist, (3) it is a clear and living expression of real transformation of men and women in Christ” (Bria, 1996, p. 20).

The next part of our study asks whether Archbishop Anastasios’ now wellknown code phrase was an inspiration of the moment at the Etchmiadzin conference or a crystallisation of previous theological thinking.

2. The exhortation to ‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’ in earlier works by Archbishop Anastasios

The germ of the phrase may be found in a sermon on “The Thrill of the Preconsecrated” delivered in 1961 during the evening Liturgy of the Preconsecrated (14.3.1961) in the University Church of Panagia Kapnikarea, in Athens8. The congregation and those who subsequently read the published sermon knew little about mission work (Yannoulatos, 1962, p. 4-5). Indeed, the revival of the Orthodox duty to bear witness to the nations was just then being rekindled. As contemporary Church History and related missionary research make clear, the contribution of Archbishop Anastasios was decisive in this regard (Papathanasiou, 2009, p. 372; Tsirevelos, 2014, p. 43).

In this work the then lay theologian Anastasios Yannoulatos notes that the spiritual life is not entirely without practical interest in the world and the salvation of all mankind. This interest stems from the foretaste of the Kingdom of God in the sacrament of Holy Communion. In no case, however, can this participation be an individual matter: rather, it must be a constant struggle for the proclamation of the Kingdom of God to the whole world. Specifically:

“Without the labour and effort of endeavouring to extend the Kingdom of God, the kingdom of love, to all the world, that is, without an awareness of mission, it is doubtful whether the Kingdom of God will reach every corner of our personal interior world. It is doubtful whether there can be a profound internal rebirth of our Church” (Yannoulatos, 1962, p. 5).

Consequently, participation in the Holy Eucharist means a transformation of our very self and a struggle for witness to God’s new world on the local and global level.

The exhortation to “liturgy after the Liturgy” and the linking of the experience of worship with worldwide apostolic mission are expressed more clearly in the article “Orthodox Mission and the Holy Eucharist” (Yannoulatos, 1964), a passage from his English-language address to the WCC Commission

8 In this article Archbishop Anastasios emphasises the connection between the Liturgy of the Preconsecrated and the prayers of the catechumens, which are spoken aloud, and the apostolic duty of the Church. For an extensive analysis of the specific theological work see Tsirevelos, N. (2015) Θεολογική θεμελίωση της Ορθόδοξης μαρτυρίας. Σπουδή στο έργο του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αλβανίας Αναστασίου, Thessaloniki: Ostracon Publishing, p. 101-108.

for World Mission and Evangelism held in Mexico in 1963. The then deacon Anastasios Yannoulatos wrote:

“Christ is not a prophet or a theory. He is life, the life. The transmission of this life is not realized so much by words or thoughts. It reaches its fulfilment in Holy Communion. Every part of our being, our human being, that is body and soul, must be holy. It is for this reason that we receive His blood and His body, so that everything within us may be transformed and we may become ‘partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Peter 1:4)” (Yannoulatos, 1964, p. 58).

This passage reveals the fullness of the life the believer receives with the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and its significance for the Orthodox Church.

Archimandrite Anastasios Yannoulatos went on to analyse the relation between Holy Communion and world mission, tracing two main axes. The first concerns the strengthening of the Christian through participation in the sacrament of Holy Communion and the concomitant awareness of his duty to bear witness to the world.

“It is highly doubtful whether we can truly participate and really live the Divine Liturgy if we do not realise within our innermost soul that the Sacrifice of Our Lord and His Redemptory Work – mystically re-enacted every time the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is performed – was accomplished for the exclusive benefit of a few millions of people but for all mankind. It is even questionable whether we have the right to take part in the Feast of Love, if we are simply uninterested in the fact that so many unknown brothers of ours are born, live and die without the Truth” (Yannoulatos, 1964, p. 58).

The second axis stresses that there can be no missionary outreach without essential communion with Christ himself. “Let us contemplate the profound relationship of unity and love between the Son and the Father, so that we may understand what kind of “communion” is required between sender and emissary” (Yannoulatos, 1964, p. 59). This communion, as he goes on to say, is achieved through participation in the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Eucharist lies

at the heart of church life; it was the primary means for the witness and the service of the Lord’s disciples and remains so for His followers in every age (Yannoulatos, 1964, p. 59).

This text, which was published in 1964, ends with a summary description of “liturgy after the Liturgy”.

“In every Divine Liturgy every one of us should ‘offer’ his/her whole self and his/her entire work – what he/she is, what he/ she has, what he/she does – to Christ (…) he/she should seek to receive his/her Lord in ‘Holy Communion’ so that his very being becomes liberated from the narrow bonds of his own egoism. Only then, with a sincere and manifest love for all mankind, will he be able to embrace the life of Divine Love, the blissful life of the Holy Trinity” (Yannoulatos, 1964, p. 59).

3. ‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’ in later texts by Archbishop Anastasios

In a 1978 essay on “Rediscovering the Orthodox missionary ethos”9 Archbishop Anastasios (2010, p. 117-134) dwells particularly on the experiential nature of the Divine Liturgy. The lived experience of worship is the starting-point for the establishment, in freedom, of substantive relations with God and one’s fellow-man. This freedom means openness to every otherness and working for harmonious co-existence among people, regardless of national, racial, sexual, religious, social or cultural particularities. In this way the Eucharist becomes a way of life and is expressed in real love for all creation. In Archbishop Anastasios’ words:

“The faithful by experiencing in the Liturgy: communion with God. (…) [The faithful] broaden the horizons of their thoughts and interests, and acquire inner strength enabling them to prolong the experience of te Liturgy into life. That is, to work for the essential promotion of brotherhood in the world, the bridging of the separated, and the elimination of all forms of cultural, linguistic

9 First published as Yannoulatos, A. (1978), “A la redécouverte de l’éthos missionaire de l’Eglise Orthodoxe”, Aspects de l’ Orthodoxie, Strasbourg, pp 78-96, with details of the initial delivery and publication of the work.

or political barriers. There is another kind of liturgy (λειτουργία means the work of people); the ‘liturgy after the Divine Liturgy’ that each believer ought to carry on after the celebration of the Liturgy in Church. The Divine Liturgy is continued with each one as celebrant before the mystical stone altar of reality, of daily obligations. Thus the Liturgy becomes life and the whole of life is elevated as Divine Liturgy” (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 131).

Moreover, the experiential Eucharistic attitude to life is expressed in the selfless offering of services, by individual Christians and by the Church as a body, to all people. In this context the liturgical experience extends into ministry and outreach, the service actively provided by Christ’s disciples in the social arena. This position clearly illustrates the anthropological orientation of Christian teaching, an orientation articulated by Archbishop Anastasios in his paper on “Worship, Service, Martyria” Yannoulatos, 1983, p. 635-639) and which includes the battle waged by Christians for the protection of human rights and the salvation of every individual person.

“The participation, therefore, in any kind of dynamic movement to liberate human life from the domination of every demonic power, oppression and unjust construct is the direct result of the liturgical experience, the direct expression of the experience of salvation” (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 151).

In this paper he demonstrates the close connection between ministry (diakonia) and witness that is rooted in the Eucharistic experience and constitutes the safety valve preventing witness and service from degenerating into proselytism or bribery.

“Worship”, Archbishop Anastasios says, “submits to a continuous ‘biological purification’ of the various wastes of human egoism offering constantly the needed pure water to cleanse the diverse personal and combined energies. This purification and sanctification contributes to the renewal of human life and the life of world” (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 153-154). In the life of the Church there is, consequently, no place for self-interest; rather, the Church itself is the Mystic Body of Christ which serves as a loving community and a willing sacrifice for the good of the world (Florofsky, 1989, p. 180; Nissiotes, 1986, p. 207; Matsoukas, 1997, p. 287).

The liturgical life of the Church steers the Christian onto an ecumenical course. Thus oriented, he seeks to strive by practical means for the unity of all. In an essay on “The Global Vision of Proclaiming the Gospel” Archbishop Anastasios stresses that: “The Liturgy, by freeing us from absorption in the problems of our small selves, expands our horizons and helps us live existentially the universality of salvation in Christ” (Yannoulatos, 1997, p. 401-417). At the same time, he also links the concept of “liturgy after the Liturgy” with the liturgical renaissance that is taking place in many local Orthodox Churches. The Christian’s interest in the whole world is thus an extension of his liturgical experience and interest in the Christians’ experiential bond with worship. In this connection Archbishop Anastasios also reveals his urgent anxiety that these theological positions be made known to the members of the Church that they draw inspiration from them and apply them in practice in their lives. He therefore stresses that the light of our Eucharistic gatherings must burn even more brightly and continue more unfailingly in our everyday life after the Liturgy, so that Orthodox witness and outreach may develop into a liturgy after the Liturgy (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 243). Such an endeavour essentially leads to ecclesiastical action and a life inspired by the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) and weaves a vision of universality that Christians are called upon to serve.

Indeed, Archbishop Anastasios points out that in the face of the constantly changing world, the continuity of the Liturgy in the community leads witness into new circumstances, with new ways and means and new environments (Αυδίκος, 2016, σ. 83). This is obviously a reference to the possibilities offered by the new technologies and digital cultures that are continually emerging (Κούκουρα, 2019, σ. 17). Now, all Christians can engage in a “liturgy after the Liturgy”, using digital channels of communication to encode Christ’s message in new ways. The Archbishop notes that “These communication codes must not be regarded as enigmas or menaces but as a new language in which to convey the ancient messages of the Gospel” (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 295). “Liturgy after the Liturgy” thus expresses the Eucharistic ethos that, across the ages and through a diversity of channels, has passed on the torch of the living presence of Christ.

Moreover, in the Divine Liturgy the whole life of Christ is represented and relived. This experience culminates in the sacrament of Holy Communion, when the faithful receive strength to carry the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22) into the community. In this way they continue the work of Christ as true apostles, seeking to “reconcile the entire human race with God” (Yannoulatos,

2003, p. 34). In this process the people, lay men and women10, have an obligation to offer with their lives the certainty of the Resurrection.

The dynamics of liturgy after the Liturgy also extend into culture. “Through the power of the Gospel, culture realizes all human potential and thus becomes the process through which the entire world is transformed” (Yannoulatos, 2003, p. 96). In later texts Archbishop Anastasios linked the transformation of the individual through experience of the Liturgy with the struggles to establish peace, with the ministry of reconciliation11 (Yannoulatos, 20-17b, p. 86 & 181; Yannoulatos, 2021, p. 47 & 113), and with the protection of the natural environment, which is an extension of the liturgical experience (Yannoulatos, 2021, p. 53-70).

4. Catch-phrases in the writings of Archbishop Anastasios

In all his writings, from the very beginning, Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos has frequently made use of brief, pithy, easily-remembered phrases that crystallize his Biblical theology and its application to missionary work. One such example is the succinct “A non-missionary Church is a Church without a mission”12, which was adopted as the motto of the periodical Porefthentes and the Inter-Orthodox Missionary Centre of the same name, both of which were founded by the then lay theologian Anastasios Yannoulatos, with the object of demonstrating the importance of bringing the good news of the Gospel to all nations (Yannoulatos, 1961b, p. 35-38).

10 Archbishop Anastasios has highlighted the importance of the laity in the life of the Church and society from his very first writings. Entirely indicatively, Yannoulatos, A. (1961), “The Missionary Activity of the Churches of the East in Central and Eastern Asia”, Porefthentes, No. 10, p. 30. Yannoulatos, A. (1968). “Initial Thoughts toward an Orthodox Foreign Mission”, Porefthentes, No. 38-39, p. 20. The crowning point came with the institution of lay participation, for men and women, in the administrative organs of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania. For more on this topic see Yannoulatos, A. (2017). The Restoration of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania (1991-2016), Tirana, p. 31 11 This, moreover, is precisely what Archbishop Anastasios practiced as Patriarchal Exarch in Albania and later as Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania. On this matter see Tsirevelos, N. (2021 Spring). “Orthodox Witness or Colonialism? The Church of Albania in Modern times”, The Wheel, No. 25, pp 34-41. 12 The phrase was also used as the motto of an exhibition organised by the Inter-Orthodox Centre “Porefthentes”. See the article by Roumeliotis, S. (1966). “Orthodox Mission Exhibit”, Porefthentes, No. 30-31, p. 32. Cf also the references to the Centre’s organised and systematic work in C. Maczewski, C. (2002). Η κίνηση της Ζωής στην Ελλάδα. Συμβολή στο πρόβλημα της Ανατολικής παραδόσεως της Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας, (μτφρ. Μεταλληνός Γ.), Αθήνα: Αρμός, p. 139.

Similarly memorable short sentences abound in the teaching manuals that Deacon Anastasios Yannoulatos (as he was then) wrote for youth catechism classes. These texts were written in 1960-63. They were published in 1978 and re-issued in 1981 and 2014 (2014. 2014b). In many of these texts, which are elaborated lesson plans, the final part, focusing on the application of the lessons to the adolescents’ everyday lives, is often structured around snappy catch-lines, devised to imprint the core idea of the lesson on their minds and lives (Tsirevelos, 2020: 9-32). The repetition of short pithy phrases is also a device frequently used for rhetorical effect in the Archbishop’s Christmas (Γιαννουλάτος, 2006) and Easter (Γιαννουλάτος, 2007) messages and sermons (Γιαννουλάτος, 2016).

This tactic of selecting and repeating certain phrases is, moreover, apparent throughout all the Archbishop’s oral and written work. By way of example one might cite repetitions that he has used in texts, interviews and statements, such as:

“Every crime committed in the name of religion is a crime against religion itself. Every form of violence perpetrated in the name of religion is, in every sense, a violation of religion itself. No war can be holy. Only peace is holy” (Yannoulatos, 2016, p. 146-147; Yannoulatos, 2021, p. 114)13 .

“No one has the right to use the oil of religion to fuel the flames of conflict. Religion is a divine gift, given to quieten hearts, heal wounds and bring people and nations closer together” (Γιαννουλάτος, 2018).

“The Christian Church promises to offer what it has and what it is (…) to direct [mankind] towards a higher level: the universal Community of Love” (Yannoulatos, 2003, p. 48).

“To the uneasiness created by the virus of insecurity Christ offers the effectual antidote” (Yannoulatos, 2018).

“Love is the antidote to the egocentrism, national, racial, religious,

13 These catch phrases and ideas were accepted and repeated almost verbatim in the final “Message” and in the “Encyclical” of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete, June 2016, which can be found in their entirety at https://www.holycouncil.org/.

which poisons the peaceful co-existence of men and peoples”. (Yannoulatos, 2022).

The success of these phrases, it should be pointed out in passing, may be judged by the way they have been adopted by numerous clerics and theologians, often without ascription of their authorship.

These phrases, formulas and statements essentially express the text’s chief position and have educational ramifications14. In the Archbishop’s work they assume a general validity, offering possibilities for further development of its various aspects. In other words, they encapsulate the main topic while their repetition seeks to instil the lesson in a concise, comprehensible and instructive manner. Plainly, the exhortation to ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’, a code phrase first heard in Armenia in 1975, was for many decades thereafter widely used by numerous theologians, who adopted it from the title of the book published by Fr Ion Bria.

Conclusions

“Liturgy after the Liturgy” refers to the Eucharistic experience of Christian who, upon leaving the church after Divine Service, is moved to share the gift they have received so that this world may become the Kingdom of God. This approach to life presupposes sacrifice, inspired by the example of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet before the Last Supper (Jn 13:1-17) and as such is a perpetuation of Christ’s self-sacrificial offering to the world by His disciples, men and women, down the ages.

The exhortation to “liturgy after the Liturgy” was originally formulated by the then Bishop of Androussa and present Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and All Albania Anastasios (Yannoulatos) at Etchmiadzin in 1975. Since then it has been used by many theologians to express the Church’s manifold mission and witness of ministry and service to the world. With these few felicitous words its author, Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos, issued a clear, concise and memorable call to a perpetually Eucharistic approach to everyday life, which expresses the passion and the struggle for the transformation of this world into the Church of Christ.

14 For the theory of the educational, pedagogical and didactic significance of the “Great Idea” see Κουκουνάρας Λιάγκης, Μ. (2020). Τι θρησκευτικά χρειάζεται σήμερα η εκπαίδευση; (What religious studies does education need today?), Αθήνα: Gutenberg, σ. 117.

In our study we present the theological foundations encapsulated in this familiar phrase, as these are found more analytically in the works of Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos from the 1960s to the present. “Liturgy after the Liturgy” is an original exhortation to outreach formulated by Archbishop Anastasios, which together with Christ’s resurrection commandment to ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations’ (Mt. 28:19) defined his missionary witness and ecclesiastical service ministry. Moreover, the Archbishop often expresses himself in easily understood concise general statements which are afterwards frequently taken up and repeated without acknowledgement of their source.

Anchimiuk, J. (1983). “Ministry of the Eucharistic Liturgy and the Ministry of the Liturgy after the Liturgy”, in G. Tsetsis (ed.), Orthodox Thought, Geneva: WCC Publ .

Anonymus, Letter to Diognetus, PG 5. Αυδίκος Ε. (2016.), Πολιτισμοί του διαδικτύου, Αθήνα: Πεδίο, Αθήνα 2016. Βασιλειάδης, Π. (2005). Lex orandi, Θεσσαλονίκη: Ίνδικτος. Blyth, M. (1992). “Liturgy after the Liturgy: An ecumenical Perspective”, The Ecumenical Review, Vol. 44, no 1, 73-79. Bobrinskoy, B. (1993). “Prière du coeur et eucharistie”, in Ioan I. Ica (ed.), Person and Communion: Homage to Fr Dumitru Staniloae, Sibiu. Bria, Ι. (1978). “The liturgy after the Liturgy”, International Review of Mission, Vol. 67, no 265, p. 86-90. Bria, I. (1986), Go Forth in Peace: Orthodox Perspectives on Mission. Geneva: WCC

Bria, I. (1996). The Liturgy after the Liturgy. Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective. Geneva: WCC Publications. Bria, I. (2002), “My pilgrimage in Mission”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 26, Iss. 2, 74-77. Bria, I. & Βασιλειάδης, Π. (1989). Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Μαρτυρία, Κατερίνη: Τέρτιος. Clapsis, E. (2004). “The Eucharist as Missionary Event in a Suffering World,” Orthodoxy in Conversation: Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. Coorilos , M. (2013), “Mission as liturgy before Liturgy and as contestation”, P. Vassileiades (ed.), Orthodox Perpectives on Mission, Oxford: Regnum Books International.

Chrysostom, J. Homily 25 on Matthew, PG 57 Γιαννουλάτος, A. (2006). Θεός εφανερώθι εν σαρκί…, Αθήνα: Μαΐστρος. Γιαννουλάτος, Α. (2007), Νυν πάντα πεπλήρωται φωτός, Αθήνα: Μαΐστρος. Γιαννουλάτος, Α. (2016), Ακτίνες από το φως του Ευαγγελίου, τμ. Α και Β΄,Tirana: Ngjalllja.

Γιαννουλάτος, Α. (2018), «Θρησκευτικός πλουραλισμός και ειρηνική συνύπαρξη», electronic edition of the newspaper e-cathimerini.com (Η Καθημερινή). Retrieved from: https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/993417/ archiepiskopos-tiranon-anastasios-stin-k-thriskeytikos-ployralismos-kaieiriniki-synyparxi/. Edwards, G. (2018 May 21-25), “Orthodox Christian Witness to the Third Millennium: Improving the mission document”, Presented at the Eighth International Conference of Orthodox Theology, hosted by the Faculty of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. Retrieved from http://www.orthodoxconference.theosch.auth.gr/keimena_final/33_ Edwards_Gregory.pdf Florofky, G. (1989). Θέματα Ορθοδόξου Θεολογίας, μτφρ. Εμ. Πρατσινάκις, Αθήνα: Άρτος Ζωής. Ignatius, To the Ephesians, PG 5. Gill, D. (1983), Gathered for Life: Official Report of the WCC 6th Assembly, Geneva: WCC Publ., 35. Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (2016), “Message” and “Encyclical”. Retrieved from https://www.holycouncil.org/ Grdzelidze, T. (2011), “Ecumenism, Orthodoxy and Education”, in J. A. McGuckin (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy Christianity, New York: A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication Kabasilas, N. Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 21, PG 150. Keshishian, A. (1992). Orthodox Perpsectives on Mission, Oxford: Regnum Lynx, 22-30. Kinnamon, M. (1991), Signs of the Spirit: Official Report of the WCC 7th Assembly, Geneva: WCC Publ. Κουκουνάρας Λιάγκης,Μ. (2020). Τι θρησκευτικά χρειάζεται σήμερα η εκπαίδευση; (What religious studies does education need today?), Αθήνα: Gutenberg. Koukoura, D. (2014), “Evangelism in ‘Christian’ Societies, An Orthodox homiletic approach”. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/37815940/ Evangelism_in_Christian_Societies. Koukoura, D. (2018) “Rievangelizzione: una procedura miletica complessa”. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/37819346/

RIEVANGELIZZAZIONE_pdf. Κούκουρα, Δ. (2019). Το κήρυγμα της Εκκλησίας και η διαμόρφωσή του. Ομιλία-Λόγος, Θεσσαλονίκη: Μπαρμπουνάκης. Maczewski, C. (2002). Η κίνηση της Ζωής στην Ελλάδα. Συμβολή στο πρόβλημα της Ανατολικής παραδόσεως της Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας, (μτφρ. Μεταλληνός Γ.), Αθήνα: Αρμός Matsoukas, N. (1997). Δογματική και Συμβολική Θεολογία Γ΄, Θεσσαλονίκη: Π. Πουρναράς. Maximus Confessor, Mystagogy, PG 91. Mosoiu, V. (2019).“‘Liturgy after the Liturgy’ as the missionary-ecumenical reference point of father Ion Bria’s thinking. A Critical Perspective”, Revista Teologica, Issue 1, 149-166 Ngige Njoroge, K. J. (2013) in “Incarnation as a mode of Orthodox mission: International Orthodox mission – Imposing culture and inculturation”, P. Vassileiades (ed.), Orthodox Perpectives on Mission, Regnum Books International

Nissiotis, Ν. (1986). Υπαρξισμός και Χριστιανική Πίστις, Αθήνα: Μήνυμα. Oleksa, M.(1983). “Overwhelmed by Joy”, International Review of Missin, 72, 415-20.

Papathanasiou, A. (2009). “Η “γενιά του ’60” και η ιεραποστολή”, Αναταράξεις στη Μεταπολεμική θεολογία - ‘Η θεολογία του ’60’, Καλαϊτζίδης, Π., Παπαθανασίου, Θ., Αμπατζίδης, Θ. (ed.) Πρακτικά θεολογικού Συνεδρίου από την Ακαδημία Θεολογικών Σπουδών Ι.Μ. Δημητριάδος και του περιοδικού Σύναξης, Athens: Indiktos. Papathanasiou, A. (2013), “Tradition as impulse for renewal and witness: Introducing Orthodox missiology in the IRM”, Vassileiades, P. (ed.), Orthodox Perpectives on Mission, Oxford: Regnum Books International. Roumeliotis, S. (1966). “Orthodox Mission Exhibit”, Porefthentes, No. 30-31, p. 32. Schmemann, A. (1979). “The Missionary Imperative,” Church, World, Mission: Reflections on Orthodoxy and the West. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979, p. 215. Scott, E. (1991), Nairobi to Vancouver, Geneva: WCC. Sonea, C. (2020), “The ‘liturgy after the Liturgy’ and Deep Solidarity. The

Orthodox Understanding of Christian Witness and its Implications for Human Society”, Mission Studies 37, 452-477. Tsirevelos, N. (2014). Τα ιεραποστολικά περιοδικά και η αποτύπωση της Ορθόδοξης μαρτυρίας κατά τη μεταπολεμική περίοδο. Επικοινωνιακή προσέγγιση (PhD thesis, Department of Theology, AUTh). Retrieved from: https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/38907 Tsirevelos, N. (2015) Θεολογική θεμελίωση της Ορθόδοξης μαρτυρίας. Σπουδή στο έργο του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αλβανίας Αναστασίου, Thessaloniki: Ostracon Publishing, p. 101-108. Tsirevelos, N. (2020). “Christian Witness, Communication and Education: A case study to the work of Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and all Albania Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Theology & Culture. 1(1): 9-32. Tsirevelos,N. (2021 Spring). “Orthodox Witness or Colonialism? The Church of Albania in Modern times”, The Wheel, No. 25, pp 34-41. Τσομπανίδης, Σ. (2009). Μετά-Λειτουργία. Η Ορθόδοξη συμμετοχή στην κοινή χριστιανική μαρτυρία για δικαιοσύνη, ειρήνη και ακεραιότητα της δημιουργίας, Θεσσαλονίκη: Π. Πουρνάρας. Yannoulatos, A. (1961), “The Missionary Activity of the Churches of the East in Central and Eastern Asia”, Porefthentes, No. 10, p. 30. Yannoulatos, A. (1961b) «Porefthedes. An Inter-Orthodox Missionary Centre”, Porefthedes, No. 11, p. 35-38. Yannoulatos, A. (1962). “The Thrill of the Preconsecrated”, Porefthentes, No.13, p. 4-5. Yannoulatos, A. (1964), “Orthodox Mission and the Holy Eucharist”, Porefthentes, No. 24, p. 58-59. Yannoulatos, A. (1968). “Initial Thoughts toward an Orthodox Foreign Mission”, Porefthentes, No. 38-39. Yannoulatos, A. (1978), “A la redécouverte de l’éthos missionaire de l’Eglise Orthodoxe”, Aspects de l’ Orthodoxie, Strasbourg. Yannoula tos, A. (1983). “Worship – Service – Martyria”. A paper for the Sixth Assembly of the WCC, International Review of Mission, 72, pp. 635-639. Yannoulatos, A. (1997). “The Global Visison of Proclaming the Gospel”, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 42 Brookline, nos. 3-4, pp. 401-417. Yannoulatos. A. (2003). Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global

Concerns, Geneva: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press and WCC. Yannoulatos, Α. (2010), Mission in Christ’s Way. An Orthodox Understanding of Mission, Brookline MA & Geneva: Holy Cross Orthodox Press & World Council of Churches Publications.

Yannoulatos, A. (2014), Θεία Μηνύματα. Πίστη και Ζωή (Divine Messages. Faith and Life), Tirana: Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania. Yannoulatos, A. (2014b), Πνευματική Πορεία (Spiritual Course), Tirana: Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania. Yannoulatos, A. (2016), In Albania. Cross and Resurrection, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Yonkers Yannoulatos, A. (2017). The Restoration of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania (1991-2016), Tirana. Yannoulatos, A. (2017b). Vigilance. An Obligation of the Orthodox, Athens: En Plo.

Yannoulatos, A. (2018), “Message of Christmas 2018”, Official website of Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania. Retrieved from: https:// orthodoxalbania.org/2020/el/2018/12/22/2018-2/. Yannoulatos, A. (2021). Coexistence. Peace, Nature, Poverty, Terrorism, Values (Religious Perspectives), Geneva: WCC 2021. Yannoulatos, A. (2022), “Message of Easter 2022”, Official website of Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania. Retrieved from: https://orthodoxalbania. org/2020/el/.

4 The study of religion in a Greek Encyclopedia of interwar period

Georgios Gaitanos

Head of the Department of Theology & Culture, Lecturer of Religious Studies, University College Logos, Tirana Corespondence:

e-mail: george.gaitanos@kulogos.edu.al

Abstract

The Great Hellenic Encyclopaedia (Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia) constitutes an enormous and particularly ambitious work for its era (19251935), as it seeks to assemble the whole scientific and human knowledge in 24 volumes and to present it with tangible and comprehensible way in its readers. The people in charge for the edition of the Encyclopaedia, who emanate either from the academic, political and military section, they wish to promote a work that will constitute a tool and a useful handbook for each Greek family, but also for anyone that wishes to advance his/her studies in a superior level. The study of religion in the Great Hellenic Encyclopaedia is faced as means of segregation and classification between the people and the various groups in all over the world. The Christianity is the “superior” religion, because it is “genuine” and does not follow false sources, as the other religions or the other adorations do. The Revelation of God in the world is the element that distinguishes and gives a precedence concerning the other religions. At the same time, the combination of Hellenism and Christianity in the Encyclopaedia recommends a combination of culture and progress.

Keywords:

Study of Religion, comparison, taxonomy, Christianity, Greek Orthodox Church, Ancient Greece. Citation:

Gaitanos G. The study of religion in a Greek Encyclopedia of interwar period. Theology & Culture. 2022; 5: 71-92. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19610.31681

In the article I will seek to develop an example from the Greek area in terms of the methodology of the classification and study of religion. Essentially, the example concerns the question of the classification of religions through a Greek encyclopedia of the interwar period, the Great Hellenic Encyclopedia (hereafter GHE).

1. General presentation of GHE

The GHE was a truly enormous and particularly ambitious project for its time (1926-1934), as it sought to collect within its 23 volumes1, all scientific and generally human knowledge and to present it in a scientifically tested but also in a tangible and understandable way to its readers and users. Those responsible for compiling the Encyclopedia, who came either from the university or from the political and military fields, wanted to create a work that would be a tool and a useful manual for every Greek, a supply for every Greek home, but also a help for anyone aiming to advance his studies at a higher and higher level.

It is characteristic that the MEE does not start from the first volume with an introduction, with which it will address its readers, in order to inform them about the aims, objectives, “beliefs” and the reason that led to the writing and creation of such a large project. The only thing quoted is a dedication in capital letters: “DEDICATED TO THE HELLENIC NATION”. In essence, what is stated is that the effort of the “most important people of Hellenic society” constituted an offer to the Greek people. It should be noted that the era was difficult and that the political, economic and educational situation in Greece presented many problems. From this point of view, the dedication to the Greek nation can be seen as a message of unity, as the specific period is characterized by political strife, national division, but at the same time a tendency to ideologically rally Hellenism and respect for the state and laws (Kremmydas, 1990: 248; Petru, 1992: 171). The edition of the GHE is more specifically included in the context of the ideological gathering: its language is simple and understandable and is addressed to scholars and scientists but also to those who do not have the necessary educational background, so that it has access and readability to all the strata of the population.

1 The 24th volume is the volume “Hellas” (volume 10) and includes entries that concern exclusively Greece and Greek culture.

The study of religion is therefore a fundamentally challenging subject, as the first thought that crosses the mind is related to situations involving a transcendent dimension, the inner world of man, and perhaps a good fortune after death. After all, this is the point of view and the position cited by the entry “religion” in the GHE. The same challenge must have been felt by the editors of the individual entries on “religion”, and in fact with particular intensity, since the publication was addressed to a readership that naturally (and due to the specificity of the Greek language) came from a society where the orthodox doctrine was dominant, often in a forceful way. For example, we can note the events that shocked the younger Greek society in the first quarter of the 20th century: the Evangelicals2 and the calendar change3 .

The GHE was therefore drawn up in a difficult and particularly unstable period for Greece. It is the period after the Balkan wars and World War I, after the Asia Minor devastation and the forced exchange of populations, and after the curtain falls on the politics of the Great Idea (Skopetea, 2002: 9-35; Dimaras, 1985: 405-418; Kremmydas, 1990: 216-217; Petru, 1992: 178-182). During this period, significant upheavals and changes took place in Greek society. For example, the urban population increased and the opposition between city/rural and metropolitan or urban/rural intensified, between the People (Nation) and the “people” of the lower strata (Kyriakidu-Nestoros, 1986: 148-185, 1993: 5358, 62-63; Svoronos, 1983: 85-91) of the cities and the rural region. The intensified industrial development caused instabilities in the Greek economy (such as unemployment, low wages, but also the devaluation of the drachma), while agricultural development remained stagnant (Karadimu-Gerolymbu, 2002: 59-105; Chatziiosif, 2002a: 9-57). More generally, however, a spirit of reform prevailed in education, in the economy, in state-citizen relations. Trend that was related to Western thought, at a time when Europe was dominated by positivism, the passion for new discoveries, technological development and

2 The bloody events that took place on November 8, 1901 and which were caused by the translation of the Gospel into the New Greek Language are called Evangelicals. This translation was made by Alexander Pallis and started to be published in the Athens newspaper “Acropolis”. Pallis’s translation was disapproved by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Holy Synod of the Church and the Theological School of the University of Athens. See, Kremmydas (1990: 216). Petru (1992: 143-144). Konstantinou (2009: 14-15). 3 This is the Gregorian calendar named after Pope Gregory XIII, which replaced the Julian calendar in 1582. In Greece, the Gregorian calendar was valid from March 1923 and was accepted by the Church of Greece a year later, i.e. in 1924. See, Kyriakidu-Nestoros (1982: 12-13).

industrial development, especially in transport but also in the heavy war industry (Picon, 1958: 9-45).

This trend also spread to Greek society, except that the lack of social and political balance did not allow substantial changes at least in the field of education, even though some important steps were taken, such as e.g. the establishment of the elementary school, but also the establishment of the modern University of Thessaloniki (1926). For example, in the field of education teachers had little support from the state and were not particularly prepared to teach. It is typical that even a high school graduate could teach at the elementary school (Kogulis, 1997: 47-50). Possibly, therefore, the GHE was designed not only as a repository of knowledge, but also as an aid to teachers and students.

In the political field things were no better, as dictatorship alternated with democracy. At the level of national ideology, the consolidation of Hellenism was sought, a trend that was complemented by the shift to (Greek) national and popular roots (Chatziiosif, 2002b: 37-123), especially in the field of Art and literature (e.g. Generation of ‘30) (Vitti, 1995: 280-332; Dimaras, 1972: 269-309), but also especially in the field of folklore. The same tendency, at least in Folklore, was discernible abroad (Thoresen, 1975; Vermeulen & Roldan, 1995). Romanticism, which had begun at the beginning of the 19th century, dominated the first quarter of the 20th century. The romantic project was combined with the quests of positivism for freedom and progress for all the people, who united in one nation, would be sovereign, and would resist any establishment4, even in the power of the Church5 .

3. Presentation of the entries about religion

The first impression from the effort of the authors of the entries on the subject of “religion” is that they sought to more accurately present the Orthodox faith and shape the identity of the Orthodox Greek, who, however, also had a glorious ancient Greek past. Of course, the authors of the encyclopedia methodologically followed the scientific trends that had been shaped by Victorian anthropology in the classification and evolution of religion, but mainly by the phenomenology of religion. The reference and presentation of these and various other trends in the study of the subject of “religion” were reflected in the articles of the GHE, as its compilation coincided with the first steps and the

4 It is a form that contains elements from rationalism, the Enlightenment, but also from Romanticism, as they were formed in Europe. See Kyriakidu-Nestoros (1986: 36-47). 5 Regarding the word of the Church in Greece and the power it acquired at the political level, see Petru (1992: 141-190).

formation of the academic way of studying religion in the international arena. So it was natural that the authors of the entries were influenced by the pioneers of a science that was about 50 to 70 years old.

The attempt to identify and analyze the methodology and theory for the encyclopedic approach to the subject of “religion”, in Greece in the second quarter of the 20th century, is not limited to simply examining the relevant encyclopedic entry “religion”, but also proceeds to (co)-examination of all those entries, which either refer to specific religions or reveal systematic religious activity or state the religious phenomenon and historically organized religiosity (i.e. based on a specific and formulated doctrine). For this reason, the research focused on the entries that refer to or deal with the Great or World religions. The entries, both as a whole included in the “body” of the GHE and as texts in themselves, following a rule, reveal more general attitudes and tendencies, theories, ideological conceptions, but also ideologies and obsessions and stereotypes, i.e. they indicate the general climate of this era.

The main concern of the authors was to study the most important religions, to state and even more to explain for the general public the main characteristics of Orthodoxy, always in relation to other confessions of faith. Also, they seem to be interested in some general characteristics that are considered to define all religions. Consequently, the “religious encyclopedia” that seems to be taking shape in the context of GHE spoke generally about religion, about the methodology of its study, about the Great or World religions, about Orthodoxy, other confessions of faith and sects, that is, it developed a doctrinal history, and discerned what is worth studying as religion.

In particular, the entries referring to the other major religions, apart from Christianity, appeared with a relatively satisfactory density and quantity, if it is taken into account that the GHE seems to have aimed at forming an Orthodox Greek identity. Regardless of the way of approach and analysis, the frequency of the entries as such indicates interest and curiosity in getting to know the “other” and especially in the religion of others. This is shown by the predominance of the entries on Judaism, although perhaps the abundance is due to the fact that the entries, of course, related to Judaism, from the point of view of Christianity refer to the Old Testament and are therefore common to Christianity as a whole. However, the entries about Buddhism are also extensive and numerous, since the feature of the religion that is particularly emphasized is “liberation”, a feature that apparently is found in Buddhism (Luvaris, 1926a: 600–602). The characteristic of liberation seems to be a criterion for the clas-

sification of Islam, as it cannot be classified among the liberating religions. It is implied that it is an “inferior” religion, since as stated in the entry “Islam” (Luvaris, 1926d: 218–219), this particular religion is “far from reaching the height of liberating religions”. However, a lack of information is observed in relation to the religions of the Far East in general, which appear with only 10 entries.

The next category concerns the presentation of the various confessions of Christianity, i.e. Orthodoxy, the Western doctrines, but also the various sects, as characterized, that developed before and after the schism of the Church. It is found that the entries related to the Orthodox Church and referring to its faith, doctrine, ethics, rules, organization and theology, dominated the GHE numerically. The officials of the GHE undertook the task of projecting and popularizing the characteristics of the Orthodox faith, since there was no previous scientifically valid, but encyclopedic, record that could clarify concepts and any questions of the Orthodox to whom the GHE was predominantly addressed. The presentation of the other denominations, Catholicism and Protestantism, was natural from this point of view, to be limited to the presentation of the historical conditions that led to the separation of the Churches, but also to the formal recording of the differences in matters of doctrine and church life. In relation to ecclesiastical matters in particular, the historical and doctrinal sources are listed, as objectively as possible, but in the epilogue of each relevant entry it is apparent or stated that the Orthodox Greek Church has always and as a rule been correct in its actions. A typical example is the entry about Catholicism, at the end of which it is stated that the Orthodox Church has no responsibility for the schism, and indeed cannot understand the reasons why it was caused (Luvaris, 1926e: 464–465). The encyclopedic description of the doctrines does not show fanaticism or hostility or even aggression, but certainly the dominance of entries about Orthodoxy, and also the constant hint that the Orthodox faith follows the right course and that it does not make any mistake at any historical moment, give the feeling of a prejudice, which extends to the entries relating to heresies, that is to say, all deviations and deviations of groups which deviated according to the authors from the right faith and life, the recording and classification of which is extensive. Perhaps this is also the point at which the GHE achieved its goal in matters of theology: the theologian-writers succeeded in formulating a systematic classification of heresies, effectively forming a “Doctrinal Encyclopedia” running through the volumes of the GHE.

Equally important is the presentation of the religions of antiquity, in Greece,

but also in the world of the Near and Middle East. There is a predominance of entries related to ancient Greece, but also a special interest in Egypt and Mesopotamia. More generally, of course, the study of ancient Greece contributed to the completion of the Greek identity and the justification of the great origin of the modern Greeks from the Ancient Greeks. In particular, emphasis was placed on entries, such as “marriage”, “death”, “funeral”, “origin”, which relate to religious customs and traditions and it was underlined that they have been preserved from Greek antiquity until the period when the entries were written. On the other hand, the importance attributed to the ancient civilizations of the East was explained by all kinds of relations, economic and cultural, that developed between Greece and the East, with religious influences and osmosis dominating. Little mention was also made of the religions and culture of pre-Columbian America, with its entry on “indigenous religions” (Dendias, 1926: 220-222) of America to present a brief report on the religiosity of the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, etc.

This numerical overview of entries on the topic “religion” is complemented by our statistical recording of the frequency of entries concerning the various religions (Figure 1). The specific statistical analysis confirms the aforementioned findings, since it shows that 52% of the entries related to religions (includes approximately 70% of all entries) are covered by entries that directly refer to Greek religiosity and the religious identity of Greeks (Orthodoxy, ancient Greece, and folk Greek religiosity - traditions). More generally, 46% of these entries refer to Christianity in its various versions and about 27% to the other major religions.

Figure 1: Total Statistical Presentation of the entries about religions

The percentages of the statistical data confirm the effort of those in charge of the GHE to shape a Greek identity, certainly ethnocentric or Christian-centric, but nevertheless scientifically documented. Christianity is proposed as an ideal religious system, as the most important religion, the one with the greatest interest. The presentation of Eastern and African religions and cultures was complementary and generally moved within the context of cosmopolitanism, exoticism, and the curious mood that characterized the interwar period. It is characteristic of the frequent presence of short ethnological entries that refer to small or “simple” societies (“tribes” are called) of Africa and Asia, and in which reference is made to religious beliefs, beliefs or customs, such as e.g. “Ainu or Aino”, “Vanyambezoi”, “Arapachi”, etc. Curiosity and the need to offer information about people and societies that were far away and characterized as exotic is a given for an encyclopedia aimed at a general audience.

4. Methodology of the study of religion

However, beyond the numerical and statistical analysis of the entries, we should also point out the methodological tendency of their authors and the ideological approach to the subject of “religion”. According to current definitions, religion is the specific in form and content belief in a god or gods or more generally in supernatural powers and the corresponding performance of worship. Usually the term refers to individual religions, such as Christianity, Islam, paganism, mysticism, animism, Buddhism, etc. This second, plural number use of the term, led to the formation of the term religion as an analytical category used to classify people and groups of people according to their beliefs or according to their worship behavior, i.e. according to all those which, in their opinion, are related to the religious phenomenon. This tendency seems to dominate the entry strategy of the GHE, where theologian-writers used the category “religion” as a means of classification, but also as a tool for drawing boundaries and constructing identities.

The way in which religion was studied and presented in the GHE is clearly stated in the analogical “definition” given in the entry of atheism (Pedusis, 1926: 15–16): “But religion is not a simple human invention to deceive the naive, but something deeper, engraved in the muscles of the human soul ...”. At the same time, in the section on religion, it is emphasized that the essence of religion should be sought, which is found in the emotion and soul of man. In fact, Luvaris (Luvaris 1926c), the author of the relevant entry, seems to come to the conclusion that the most important element to be studied is man’s impulse

towards redemption, an impulse resulting from the evolution of religious consciousness from the lower to higher religions and even those that refer to God and lead to the departure from earthly life to heaven. In this approach a pattern of religion is formed, which shocks man mentally and emotionally, because they refer to some omnipotent divine figure, which can appear to the believer and lead him to redemption. Essentially, what interested the theologian-writers of the Encyclopedia is to underline the evolution of religious consciousness as the essence of religion.

At this point, it is useful to make a reference to the dominant views of the Encyclopedia on the science that should study religion, but also on the methodology that should be followed. According to them, the science of religion (Religionswissenschaft), which is regarded as the pre-eminent special science of the study of religion, includes the history of religions, the psychology of religion and the philosophy of religion. However, the study of religion is not an independent field, since it is considered a branch of the general science of theology. It should be noted that in the relevant entry (Luvaris, 1926c: 714721), theology is presented as the science of the Christian religion, and the purpose of which is to promote faith in Christianity, while it is then stated that theology is the science of religion, because it investigates the religious phenomenon. That is, theology has a narrow meaning at the same time, when it studies Christianity, and a broader one, when it studies other religions.

Despite the resulting complexity and ambiguity, Luvaris (Luvaris 1926c) does not seem to have been particularly troubled. Specifically, when referring to the four methods for the study of religion, the historical6, the psychological7,the genetic8 and the critical9, he judged them to be incomplete, and selected as the only correct method that which studies the feeling and essence of religion, that which applauds the development of religious consciousness to its highest point, the Christian faith10 .

6 The historical method is rejected, because historical events alone cannot help in discovering the essence of religion. 7 The psychological method is rejected, because there is a danger that the preoccupation with morbid and eccentric manifestations will hide the scientific truth and of course the truth of religion. 8 The genetic method (the religious experience is the subjective impression that the divine creates in us) is rejected, because it does not examine the evolution of religious consciousness. 9 The critical method (religion comes from human consciousness) is rejected because it does not take into account the need to study religion as a system of knowledge. 10 See the entry heresies, Balanos (1926: 819–820), in which Christianity is considered as “high spiritual phenomenon”.

At the same time, God was also considered a necessary element of religion, as it was considered to be an experience-revelation, an emotion, a matter of the heart, and in no case was a product of logic, of the mind (Luvaris, 1926b: 528–529). Of course, this view was very close to the methodology followed by the Fathers of the Church. That is, the Fathers practiced charismatic Theology, as they based their words on the experiences they had lived and not on the products of logic that was characteristic of Western scholastic theology (Matsukas, 2000: 132-143).

Other necessary characteristics for something to be classified as a religion were the development of some theological teaching, the existence of some “Holy” Scripture, Theophany - the revelation of the divine to man in history, and in general that certain manifestations of religiosity be observed, such as worship, the sacrifice etc. (Luvaris, 1926c: 714–721). Of course, if anyone looks for a definition of religion in the Encyclopedia, there is no reason for that, as religion was considered something, if not impossible, at least extremely difficult to define. According to Louvaris, who records religion, there is no established definition11 .

The theologian-writers of the GHE therefore followed to the letter the tendencies of the phenomenologists of religion, so that it follows that only theology, or to be more precise the phenomenology of religion, constitutes the ideal approach to the study of religion. After all, from the way in which the entries were defined, it becomes clear that the religion or the type of religion that is used as a model for the study of the religious phenomenon in general and of each religion in particular, is Christianity. A fact that is not surprising, if one takes into account that eight of the thirteen scientific units of the entry writers of the subject “religion” structurally belonged to theological science: Theology, Biblical Archaeology, Biblical History, Interpretation, Catechism, Liturgy, Patrology, Symbolic Theology - Dogmatic12 .

Certainly, the postulate that theology was the standard (and only) science for the study of religion did not reveal the standard and appropriate way to study the religious phenomenon (Martin, 2007: 333-345). Words and phrases encountered in various entries, such as “feeling”, “essence”, “heart”, “religious development”, “lower - higher religion”, “primitives”, “savages”, show that the GHE theologian-writers they were influenced not only by the followers of the

11 “Religion is a phenomenon, the definition of which we do not have until now...” in the entry “Religion”. See, Luvaris (1926c: 714). 12 The remaining five were Folklore, Astrology, Ethnology, Religion, Phenomenology – Philosophy of religion.

Phenomenology of Religion, but also by the evolutionists - anthropologists who argued that the evolution of culture/society depends on the evolution of religion. This is a natural consequence, since these scholars were the masters of thought of their time. The essence of religion remained the subject of their research. Specific historical data and sociological parameters were bypassed, resulting in a hypothetical and generalized “historical diagram” that confirmed a priori the evolutionary theory of the stages of civilization and the classification of civilizations into wild or barbarous and primitive, and the higher civilization that was the European.

The approach was strongly influenced by the phenomenology of religion, by which all (or most) Western theologians had been influenced. Apparently, the German version of the phenomenology of religion, which was dominant at the time, was preferred in the GHE. Theologian-writers were influenced by the analysis of Nathan Söderblom, Rudolf Otto and Gerardus van der Leeuw. It is characteristic that they were not only presented as the appropriate standards for the study of religion, but also applied literally whenever a religion was discussed, the characteristics of which were compared with similar ones of other religions, so as to fit into the general phenomenological model of religion.

In addition to this analytical model, the authors of the GHE were also influenced by the evolutionary model of Victorian Anthropology, which they indirectly overturned, since they considered that the Revelation of the divine exists from the beginning and that all other religions or cults are centered on myths or the belief in magic, and that their followers had chosen false cults and not the true faith, that is, the Christian faith.

It is characteristic, for example, that only in 116 of the 1528 entries of the GHE that referred to or were related to the subject “religion”, general analytical terms appear. Furthermore, an a-historical tendency in the argumentation dominated by theological-type explanations coming mostly from the field of Christian theology is clear. Thus, while a general explanatory scheme was presented for the way human and therefore universal concepts are formed, however, precisely because the native meaning of certain concepts is not sought, such as e.g. “religion”, “god”, in each individual society, it seems as if these concepts are universal. This basically Christian-centric and Euro-centric tendency dominated the approaches of the theological writers of the GHE and accompanied the parallel tendency for the discovery of the “primitive religion”, Ur-Religion or even the primary expression of the religious conscious-

ness of Man13. The relevant diagram listed in the entry “religion” of the GHE is typical (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Evolution of Religion-Source: Luvaris (1926c: 719).

Thus, the examination of religions was done using terms and concepts related to Christianity or the evolutionary system of classification, while their special cases and teachings are compared and related to Christianity14. It is typical that in the entry on mystery religions (sic) (Luvaris, 1926g: 893–898) of the Hellenistic era (e.g. Isis, Mithras, etc.), according to the opinion of the editors of the GHE, Resurrection was presented as their main characteristic, while of course the concept of Resurrection does not exist in this type of worship. This view was in line with the positions of the “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule” and influenced by J. Frazer’s work, The Golden Bough, which was dominant at this time (Smith, 1987: 521-526). The reference to the Resurrection was made to show that these cults had been influenced by Christianity. Another example could be considered the entry of Confucianism, where in the texts

13 About the Eurocentric way of thinking, see Rudolph (1994: 131-139). 14 Of course, the use of a legitimate vocabulary, i.e. a vocabulary free from ethnocentric definitions and stereotypes, for the study of cultures, religions or more generally of different religious or other concepts, practices and behaviors, has particularly concerned religious research, but also scholars of Anthropology and Sociology of Religion. See Smart (1994: 901-903). Sung – Hae (1994: 897-899). Wiebe (1994: 905-912). Skuteri-Didaskalu (1997: 1151). Evans – Pritchard (1977). Gellner (1970: 18-49). Morris (1987). Lessa & Vogt (1965). Durkheim & Mauss (2001). Mauss & Hubert (1990). Papageorgiu (2005).

of Confucianism15 the requirements and principles set by the god Heaven are mentioned. They could also be characterized as divine reasons. However, in this entry the principles of the god Heaven are referred to as divine Logos, and the word Logos is capitalized (Luvaris, 1926f: 794–795), something that refers to the divine Word of Christianity16. Thus, the reader who does not know can be led to misleading associations, as the authors resorted to familiar terms, which, however, distorted the object they undertook to present and did not proportionally give meaning to the different way of life and perception of non-Western societies.

In particular, the GHE presented an analytical historical path of each religion, but in a way that did not reveal the evolution or the appearance of new characteristics in the individual religions. Essentially, these writers were interested in religious ideas and the use of history was related to the simple reporting of the most important events in the course of each religion. Essentially, the historical context served as an auxiliary tool to increase the length of the entry rather than a scientific one. Of course, this situation complements our above finding that the theoretical training of the authors of the entries reveals a faithful adherence to the rules of the phenomenology of religion, which introduces a purely a-historical and non-sociological approach to religion (Eliade, 2002).

Overall, in terms of the scientific process that must be followed for the correct study of a religious phenomenon, a necessary condition is the “participation of the researcher’s soul in the phenomenon under investigation”. A view which was deemed necessary to be filed as a position under the heading “Christianity,” evidently because its author17 is a theologian with orthodox training, education, but also religious faith. That is, it is a literal statement rather than a metaphor, showing the dedication of a writer-scholar to his work. However, what is happening with other religions? This “soul” statement of what proper research should be, reminiscent of the views of Gerardus van der Leeuw18, seems to apply only to Christianity, since what is mentioned in other religions has no essential connection with them or is listed only to be

15 About Confucianism, see Ziakas (2006: 505-509). 16 The same problem is also found regarding the understanding of the concept of Tao (=way) of Taoism. See Ziakas (2006: 513). 17 Luvaris (1926h: 713–718). On the importance of “religious psychology” or “psychology of religion” according to N. Louvari, see Bezgos (2011: 199-207). 18 See Waardenburg (1987: 493-495). McCutcheon (2007: 151-152). Allen (2005: 193). Sharpe (2008: 406-414). Kippenberg (2002). For the overall thinking of the Dutch religious researcher as presented in his work, see Leeuw (1977).

compared with concepts and symbols of Christianity. For example, how is it possible to examine the theology of Buddhism, when in Buddhism there is no concept of God? Does this bypass the statement for proper investigation? The appearance of the statement in the entry for Christianity does not seem to be accidental, since of course its presence in the entries for the other religions would be oxymorous.

In general, the way in which the subject of “religion” was approached resembles, in keeping with the analogies, the classification system carried out in Biology, i.e. hierarchical categorizations that include a plant or animal in a genus or a species. According to the example of J. Z. Smith (1982) on how to classify the walnut and its inclusion in a species and genus, it is found that there are two types of classification, the monothetic and the polythetic (Smith, 1982: 2-4, 2004: 315). The first accepts only one defining feature for the classification of species, while the second accepts more features on the basis of which similarities, differences and deviations from the norm are evaluated. Therefore, we can conclude that the way of classifying religions adopted in the encyclopedias was monothetic, since it was based on a-priori abstract categories. So a system of evaluating religions was created with a positive and a negative pole. The positive pole was always directed at “us” and the negative at “others”, with the consequence that each individual religion was approached with qualitative criteria, i.e. as to whether it is “true” or “false”, whether it is “natural” or “product of revelation”, whether it is “local” or “global”. Of course, the goal of the monothetic approach is uniqueness, the definitive, the absolute. This kind of search for the essence of religion led to the definition of individual religions by postulates or even slogans.

5. The ideological background of the authors of the entries

The reference to specific names of collaborators and editors of the encyclopedias makes the ideology and mentality that permeates them easier to understand. So the committee that had undertaken the compilation of the GHE’s content was composed of V. Dousmanis (Deputy General - Chairman of the committee), Th. Vellianitis (Former Minister - Vice-chairman of the committee), the Professors of the National University Ad. Adamantiou, G. Athanasiadis, Ar. Kouzis, D. Balano, and A. Vamvetsos (Lawyer). Of the above contributors, the one we are interested in regarding the topic “religion” is D. Balanos, who seems to have been responsible for the performance and dis-

tribution of the topics and categories of the entries, as will be seen from the data he was considered to be the one with the most experience to handle the “religion” issue.

In particular, the authors who dominated the entry of the concepts of religion and theology were all the professors of the National University. It is about Pan. I. Bratsiotis, Professor of Biblical History, N. I. Louvari, Professor of the Introduction and Interpretation of the New Testament, K. I. Diovouniotis, Professor of the History of Doctrines and Symbolism and D. S. Balano, Professor of Patrology and Interpretation of the Fathers.

As can be understood, the academic and scientific specialization of the professors usually prevents engaging or deepening in an objective way in the research of religion in general, and especially of “other” religions but also the treatment of their believers. For example, the professor of the New Testament dealt with general theology, the two professors of Dogmatics formulated the general categories for religion studying them only in the light of orthodox theology, while Pan. I. Bratsiotis of the Old Testament certainly dealt with the study of biblical sources, but always in the light of orthodox theology, without taking into account the theological approaches of either other denominations or Judaism. But in order to be able to understand whether they were qualified to treat concisely, as an encyclopedic entry required, and scientifically, as the authority of the GHE demanded, a subject such as religion and its sub-subjects, we must examine the cycle of their studies, i.e. what they had been taught, their publications and academic work, and the bibliography they used.

The above acquires particular importance if we take into account the Minutes of the Rectors of the University of Athens from 1886-1933, as the courses taught at the Theological School were the Old Testament, the New Testament (on which more emphasis was placed), Church History (the scientific and systematic exposition of the history of the Christian Church, i.e. its foundation, spread and development from all points of view), Apologetics (a course dealing with the defense, justification and vindication of all the truths of Christianity) – History of Doctrines (systematic examination of the historical development of doctrines), Dogmatics, Liturgical (a course that deals with the theory of divine worship and, in general, any service and ministry performed by the Church), Homiletics (the teaching of the way of preaching in the Church for the training of the faithful in the Christian faith and in the Christian life)19 and Christian Archaeology. In the early 1890s, the courses of Ethics and Pa-

trology were added, while at the end of the same decade the course of Pastoral Studies (the examination of the means by which the Church teachers, cares for the needs of her flock) was introduced, which accompanied Homiletics. In the mid-1910s, the Catechism course (a course that sets forth the pedagogical tools to be used for the Christian education of youth) was added, while an equal approach to the teaching of the Old and New Testaments was attempted.

In none of the aforementioned courses does it seem that the study of religion was systematically taught. For the first time in the academic year 1906-07, a course entitled “On Religion” was included in the program of the Theological School of Athens, the teaching of which was undertaken by the professor of Dogmatics, D. Balanos. D. Balanos, who in addition to being the editor of the main entries, was a member of the Editorial Committee of the GHE, taught the specific course for only a few years, since at some point (around 1910), apparently it was abolished and until the period 1920-28 when the articles of the GHE are compiled and published, the specific course or any equivalent does not appear in the curriculum of the Theological School.

Based on the above, we can assume that Balanos20 and Dyovouniotis21 had not heard any systematic course on religion or religious studies, at least in Greece, and the later Louvaris and Bratsiotis had possibly attended some courses on religion from professor D. Balanos. That is, 2 of the 4 most important theologians-editors of the Encyclopedia as students in Greece were taught the study of religion by someone who exclusively studied theology and dogma in Greece and abroad. Furthermore, Balanus’ specialty was not the study of religion, but Patrology.

Therefore, D. Balanos was de facto considered responsible for the assignment of the writing of the articles as an expert on the subject of religion, since he had taught a relevant course. In addition, as a member of the university community, he had a clear and intimate view of the studies and the abilities of his colleagues, so that he was able to choose which category of issues each could deal with. Together with K. Diovouniotis, they took over most of the entries that concerned doctrinal issues or referred to the issue of sects. To N.

20 D. Balanos (born 1878) studied theology in Athens and in Germany. In 1905 he became assistant professor of Patrology at the Theological School of the University of Athens, where in 1923 he was elected professor at the chair of Patrology. See Eleftherudakis 1927 (Δ. Μπαλάνος. Ελευθερουδάκης 9, 578). 21 K. Diovouniotis (born 1872) studied Theology at the University of Athens and Philosophy at the University of Leipzig. In 1903 he became a lecturer at the Theological School of the University of Athens, where in 1920 he was elected full professor of the chair of Dogmatics. See Eleftherudakis 1927 (Κ. Δυοβουνιώτης. Ελευθερουδάκης 4, 799).

Louvari22 he assigned the analysis of the great religions, as well as those related to the New Testament, while to Pan. Bratsioti23 all subjects related to the Old Testament and the Holy Bible.

The academic training of the theologians-writers of the GHE was not only the result of their studies in Greece, but - and above all - of their further education abroad, and more specifically in Germany, which at that time was the ideal place not only for Biblical Studies, but also for Philosophy and Phenomenology. In the German universities where the Phenomenology of Religion was systematically developed, it was unlikely that the editors of the Encyclopedia who studied there had not taken some relevant courses. After all, the positions of the great phenomenologists appear in some of the most central entries, such as “religion”, “redemption”, “Buddhism”, “purification”, etc. However, it is characteristic that an explicit reference to the “Phenomenology of Religion” as an ideal approach to the study of religion is absent.

A more general conclusion is that there seems to be a relative weakness, perhaps even indifference, in constructing an objective theological presentation. Weakness, which is intensified by the apologetic tendency prevailing in the foundation of the arguments to which the writers of the entries appealed, since the method of Apologetics was extolled under the pretense that it helps to prove that Christianity is the true religion, armed with Revelation, and that is why it excels over other religions (Papamichail, 1926: 193–194; Luvaris, 1926h: 713-718). In other words, the orthodox Christian view of the authors determined their methodological or theoretical approach.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the publication of the GHE was certainly a pioneering intellectual-scientific cultural movement. A central question that arises when studying the entries of encyclopedias on the subject of “religion” concerns whether their authors were objective. Specifically, the way in which Orthodoxy was presented, as well as the ancient Greek past, as well as the emphasis and length of the relevant entries show that the main purpose of the theolo-

22 N. Louvaris (b. 1887) studied at the Theological School of Athens and philosophy in Germany (1910-14). In 1925 he was appointed professor at the University of Athens in the chair of Introduction and Interpretation of the New Testament. See Eleftherudakis 1927 (Ν. Λούβαρις. Ελευθερουδάκης 8, 799). Stathopulos (1981). Dardavesis (2011). 23 P. Bratsiotis (born 1889), a graduate of the Rizarios School, studied theology at the University of Athens and at the Universities of Leipzig and Jena. In 1925 he was elected full professor of the Theological School of the University of Athens in the chair of Biblical History. See Eleftherudakis 1927 (Π. Μπρατσιώτης. Ελευθερουδάκης 9, 595).

gian-writers was to describe the Greek identity. This goal was pursued as scientifically as possible, so as to avoid both religious fanaticism and ethnocentrism. This, not always successful, attempt was also accompanied by a more general interest in getting to know “others”.

In any case, in some subjects poverty, ellipsis and one-sidedness can be found both in the theoretical infrastructure of the authors and in the use of their sources, as the authors were influenced by the perceptions of the so-called “Religious-Historical School” that dominated the circles of German-speaking researchers of the New Testament (Pachis, 2007: 448-449). In relation to the classification and comparison of religions, the encyclopedic method was followed, while religion was treated as a sui generis phenomenon, i.e. as a product of divine revelation and not as a social phenomenon, which takes shape within human history. This basically phenomenological approach to religion and the consequent development of a Christian typology is mainly due to the authors’ religious studies in Germany and their theological studies in Greece. Thus, in the field of religion the GHE showed completeness in relation to Christian theology, but in relation to the presentation, description and analysis of other religions and cultures, its weaknesses were inherent.

The GHE addressed all Greeks, conveying a message of unity that transcended discrimination and divisions. The GHE was published at a time when the world sought to know the different and the new, while everyone wanted to progress and escape from ignorance and obscurantism.

Its editors knew that the purpose was “national”. Thus, scientific knowledge was channeled into the individual entries, and the “recognized experts” referred to above provide their scientific and generally unquestionably specialized knowledge. Their own scientism institutionally confirmed the prestige of the GHE, but also its ideological approach and in the long run served political and social power pursuits. The study of the entries on “religion” confirmed this working hypothesis in perhaps the most characteristic way.

Allen, D. 2005. Phenomenology of Religion. In J. R. Hinnells (ed.), The Routledge companion to the Study of Religion. London; New York, 182-207. Balanos, D. 1926. Eresis. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia B, 819-820. Bezgos, M. 2011. O Nikolaos Luvaris ke I psychologia tis thriskias. In Th. Dardavesis (ed.), Nikolaos Luvaris: O Filosofos, Pedagogos ke Theologos. Thessaloniki, 199-207. Chatziiosif, Ch. 2002a. To prosfygiko sok, i statheres ke i metaboles tis ellinikis ikonomias. In Ch. Chatziiosif (ed.), Istoria tis Ellados tu 20u eona. O Mesopolemos tomos B1. Athina, 9-57. Chatziiosif, Ch. 2002b. Kinovulio ke dictatorial. In Ch. Chatziiosif (ed.), Istoria tis Ellados tu 20u eona. O Mesopolemos tomos B2. Athina, 37-123. Dardavesis, Th. 2011. Nikolaos Luvaris: O Filosofos, Pedagogos ke Theologos. Thessaloniki.

Dendias, M. 1926. Ameriki-thriskie ithagenis. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia D, 220-222.

Dimaras, K. 1972. Istoria tis Neoellinikis Logotechnias. Athina. Dimaras, K. 1985. Ellinikos Romadismos. Athina. Durkheim, E. & Mauss, M. 2001. Morfes protogonis taxinomisis. Metafrasi A. Georgulas. Athina. Eleftheroudakis, K. 1927. Eleftheroudaki Egiklopediko Lexiko. Athina. Eliade, M. (2002). Geschichte der religiösen Ideen in vier Bänden. Freiburg. Evans – Pritchard, E. E. 1977. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford.

Gellner, E. 1970. Concepts and Society. In B. Wilson (ed.), Rationality. Oxford, 18-49.

Karadimu-Gerolymbu, A. 2002. Polis ke ypethros: Metaschimatismi ke anadiarthosis sto plesio tu ethniku choru. In Ch. Chatziiosif (ed.), Istoria tis Ellados tu 20u eona. O Mesopolemos tomos B1. Athina, 59-105. Kippenberg, H. 2002. Discovering Religious History in the Modern Age. Τranslated by Barbara Harshav. Princeton; Oxford. Kogulis, Ι. 1997. O daskalos ke I Orthodoxi christianiki agogi ton mathiton tu

Dimotiku scholiu. Theoritiki ke embiriki prosengisi. Thessaloniki. Konstantinou, M. 2009. Old Testament Canon and Text in the Greek-Speaking Orthodox Church [online]. Available from: http://users.auth.gr/~mkon/ Scolarship.html [15 January 2009]. Kremmydas, B. 1990. Neoteri istoria: Elliniki ke Evropaiki. Athina. Kyriakidu-Nestoros, A. 1982. I 12 mines: Ta Laografika. Thessaloniki. Kyriakidu-Nestoros, A. 1986. I Theoria tis ellinikis laografias: Kritiki analysi. Athina.

Kyriakidu-Nestoros, A. 1993. Laografika Meletimata II. Athina. Leeuw, G. van der. 1977. Phänomenologie der Religion. Tübingen. Lessa, W. A. & Vogt, E. Z. 1965. Reader in comparative religion: An anthropological approach. New York; Evanston; London. Luvaris, N. 1926a. Vudismos. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia Z, 600-602. Luvaris, N. 1926b. Theos. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia IV, 528-529. Luvaris, N. 1926c. Thriskia. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia IV, 714-721. Luvaris, N. 1926d. Islamismos. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia IG, 218-219. Luvaris, N. 1926e. Katholikismos. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia IG, 464-465. Luvaris, N. 1926f. Komfukismos. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia ID, 794-795. Luvaris, N. 1926g. Mystiriake thriskie. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia IZ, 893-898. Luvaris, N. 1926h. Christianismos. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia KD, 713-718. Martin, L. 2007. The Academic Study of Religion: A Theological or Theoretical Undertaking. In P. Pachis (ed.), Filia ke Kinonia Thessaloniki, 333-345. Matsukas, N. 2000. Dogmatiki ke Symvoliki Theologia, tomos A’. Thessaloniki. Mauss, M. & Hubert, E. 1990. Schediasma mias genikis theorias gia ti magia. Metafrasi Maria Velivathaki-Thodoros Paradelis. Athina.

McCutcheon, R. 2007. Studying Religion: An Introduction. London. Morris, B. 1987. Anthropological Studies of Religion: An Introduction. Cambridge. Pachis, P. 2007. I istoria tis erevnas ton thriskion tis ellinistikis epochis. Anamesa stin paradosi kai ti neoterikotita. In P. Pachis (ed.), Filia ke Kinonia Thessaloniki, 439-546.

Papageorgiu, N. 2005. Metamorfosis tu ierou: Kinoniologia ke thriskia sto ergo tu Marcel Mauss. Thessaloniki.

Papamichail, G. 1926. Apologitiki. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia E, 193-194. Pedusis, P. 1926. Atheia-filosofikos. Megali Elliniki Egiklopedia B, 15-16. Petru, I. 1992. Ekklisia ke Politiki stin Ellada (1750-1909). Thessaloniki. Picon, G. 1958. Panorama ton sychronon ideon. Metafrasi Kostas Kalligas. Athina.

Rudolph, K. 1994. Inwieweit ist der Begriff “Religion” eurozentrisch. Ιn U. Bianchi (ed.), The Notion of “Religion” in Comparative Research. Selected Proceedings of the XVI IAHR Congress (Storia delle Religioni, 8). Roma, 131139.

Sharpe, E. 2008. Sygritiki Thriskiologia: istoriki isagogi. Metafrasi St. Papalexandropulos. Athina. Skopetea, E. 2002. I Ellines ke i echtri tus. In Ch. Chatziiosif (ed.), Istoria tis Ellados tu 20u eona. I Aparches 1900-1922 tomos A2. Athina, 9-35. Skuteri-Didaskalu, Ε. 1997. To stigma tis “magias”: Peridinisis enos simiu anaforas stin anthropologiki theoria. Glossa ke Magia: Kimena apo tin Archeotita. Athina, 11-51. Smart, N. 1994. Retrospect and prospect: The History of religion. Ιn U. Bianchi (ed.), The Notion of “Religion” in Comparative Research. Selected Proceedings of the XVI IAHR Congress (Storia delle Religioni, 8). Roma, 901-903. Smith, J. Z. 1982. Imagining Religion. From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago. Smith, J. Z. 1987. Dying and Rising Gods. In M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 4, 521-526. Smith, J. Z. 2004. Relating Religion: Essays In The Study Of Religion. Chicago; London.

Stathopulos, D. 1981. N. I. Luvaris. O Apodimitis, o Mystis, o Epoptis: Afieroma timis ke mnimis apo filus, synadelfus, mathites, sta 20 chronia apo tin ekdimia tu (1961-1981). Athina. Sung – Hae, K. 1994. The History of religion: Retrospect and prospect. Ιn U. Bianchi (ed.), The Notion of “Religion” in Comparative Research. Selected Proceedings of the XVI IAHR Congress (Storia delle Religioni, 8). Roma, 897899.

Svoronos, N. 1983. I ennia tu lau sti neoelliniki istoriografia: diarkies ke tomis. Analekta neoellinikis istorias ke istoriografias. Athina, 85-91. Thoresen, T. H. H. 1975. Toward a science of man: essays in the history of anthropology (International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences 9th, 1973, Chicago). Hague; Paris. Vermeulen, H. F. & Roldan, A. A. 1995. Fieldwork and footnotes: Studies in the history of European anthropology. London; New York. Vitti, M. 1995. I “genia tu Triada”: ideologia ke morfi. Athina Waardenburg, J. 1987. Leeuw van der, Gerardus. In M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 8, 493-495. Wiebe, D. 1994. Transcending religious language: Towards the recovery of an academic agenda. Ιn U. Bianchi (ed.), The Notion of “Religion” in Comparative Research. Selected Proceedings of the XVI IAHR Congress (Storia delle Religioni, 8). Roma, 905-912. Ziakas, Gr. 2006. Thriskies ke Politismi tis Asias. Thessaloniki.