The exceptional contribution of John Zizioulas to the cultivation of Systematic Theology is clarified in more detail in the following analysis of his opus
Ἡ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐν τῇ θείᾳ Εὐχαριστίᾳ καὶ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ κατὰ τοὺς τρεῖς πρώτους αἰῶνας (Αθήνα: Γρηγόρης 1965, 1990)
Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Transl. Elizabeth Theokritoff (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001)
This study examines and analyzes the Biblical and Patristic sources up to Cyprian in order to investigate the issue: what concept of the unity of the Church prevailed in these sources, so as to draw from them conclusions for systematic theology, and especially ecclesiology. These findings can be summarized in six original points:
a) The concept of the unity of the Church, introduced by Baur and the Tübingen School, according to which according to the well-known Hegelian scheme (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) these are ideological oppositions, which are finally synthesized in the era of "catholization" of the Church, cannot rely on the sources. The main axes of the unity of the Church were not initially the ideas or beliefs about the preaching and the person of Christ, but this very person of Christ and the assembly of the scattered Israel around it, and finally in Him ("ἐν αυτῷ"). This means that the original unity of the Church was mainly a unity "in the Eucharist", which embodied the personal presence of Christ in the Church.
b) This unity had a local The examination of the sources testifies that the term "church" usually meant the local community gathered together "in one place", to celebrate the Eucharist (Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Ignatius, etc.). It also proves that the term “catholic Church” («καθολική εκκλησία”) originally did not denote the universal Church, as it prevailed to be considered by Augustine et al., but every local Church united around its bishop and in the Holy Eucharist.
c) The bishop had as his main function the presidency of the eucharistic assembly of his local Church, which is why he quickly came to be considered as an “image of Christ” or “in the type or place of God” (Ignatius). The development of the episcopal authority of the bishop in the first centuries had as its starting point his leading position in the Eucharist and the Christological "typology" connected to it. Only after the fourth century does the bishop begin to be seen primarily as a "governor".
d) The presbyters originally constituted a “college,” which surrounded the bishop in the Holy Eucharist according to the type of the Apostles, who are expected to surround Christ in the Kingdom. Initially, their main task was not the presidency of the Eucharistic assembly, but the catechism and teaching of the faithful and the administration of justice together with the bishop. Only after the fourth century did they receive the title “priest,” which was previously used for the bishop and initially for Christ.
e) The problem of the relationship between heresy and schism is clarified by the analysis of patristic sources. The unity of the Church “in faith” is an essential and necessary condition for Eucharistic communion, but the concept of the universality of the Church is broader than that of Orthodoxy: the former includes the latter, while the latter does not necessarily include the former. This position has very serious consequences for certain modern perceptions of Orthodoxy, which tend to consider Orthodoxy as an ideology, that is, as a system of ideas, and not as a communion and community, as a Church.
f) Parishes as presbyter-centered units developed only in the fourth century. At this point, the sources are examined in an original way. And after the appearance of the parishes, the unity of the bishop is fully ensured by various means (the Fermentum, the Antimension, the commemoration of the local bishop at the time of the eucharistic petition, etc.). From the point of view of systematic theology this testifies that the term “church” or, much more, “catholic church,” cannot be applied to the parish, but only to the diocese (against Afanasiev, Schmemann, etc.). The center of the unity of the Church remains even after the appearance of the parish, the bishop.
g) This episcopocentric character of ecclesiastical unity creates the problem of the unity of the Church on a wider level. The local Churches do not cease to constitute one Church throughout the world. The key problem of Systematic Theology, to which this research answers, is whether unity at the level of the world saves or not the universality of the local Church. This problem was central to the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, and this caused the interest of Zizioulas’ positions internationally, and especially in the circles of Roman Catholic Theologians. The Revue d' histoire ecclésiastique (vol. 65, 1970, pp. 56-68) published a multi-page book review by P. C. Bori with flattering comments and interesting observations. From an Orthodox point of view, this study was also commented very positively (see Ρ. NELLAS, «Sur deux thèses d'ecclésiologie orthodoxe», Contacts 68 [1969] 329-338), while it is constantly referred to, and has already seen a second edition. Its influence in legal circles too has already been pointed out (Α. ΜΑΡΙΝΟΥ, Σχέσεις Εκκλησίας και Πολιτείας, 1984).
With this study, serious one-sidedness of the so-called "eucharistic theology" of the Afanasiev’s school is corrected, and it is demonstrated that: a) the Holy Eucharist is not enough for the unity of the Church, but the condition of correct faith (or Orthodoxy) is also required, and b) the unity of the Church on a universal, global level is equally necessary as the unity of the local Church.
The reception of this work internationally has been very positive. Apart from its lengthy presentation in the Revue d' histoire ecclesiastique, which was mentioned above, S. Parsons presents it in a ten-page book review in the English Sobornost, noting among others the following:
“The author, a distinguished Orthodox theologian ... puts forward some challenging ideas on one of the most central points in the contemporary ecumenical debate... The importance of Zizioulas' work is that he has taken up these insights ... and has placed them on a solid Scriptural and Patristic foundation, which hitherto had been lacking ... This book is of considerable importance to all students of Ecclesiology and in particular to those who seek an alternative to the scholastic concepts which even now underlie so much of the debate... Apart from the interest of the book as a document of modern... theology and thinking, it is to be hoped that the thesis propounded by this distinctly creative theologian may be of some assistance to all who are involved in the reading of Patristic theology” (vol. 1972, 270-79).
It complements the previous study by extending the problematic to the issues of the formation and presidency of the synods and the related ecclesiological and canonical issues. The importance of this study for legal science is evident from its wide use together with the one about the unity of the Church in the work of A. Marinos, Σχέσεις Εκκλησίας και Πολιτείας, 1984, esp. 25-50.
In the framework of Zizioula's studies on ecclesiology, he presents in this study the subject of apostolic succession, which is a central point of this branch of systematic theology. The prevailing concept of apostolic succession goes back mainly to sources of Western patristic theology, and ignores a whole current, which goes back to Syro-Palestinian sources, such as Ignatius of Antioch, the "Teaching (Διδασκαλία) of the Apostles", Eusebius of Caesarea et al. According to these sources, the apostolic succession has a Christological content, according to which the bishop traces his succession to the person of Christ, who is succeeded not by Peter, but by his brother James. These two tendencies: to consider the succession, in one view as the succession of Peter, while in the other view as the succession of James (Christological succession), has important theological consequences, which he presents in this study, in which he proposes the synthesis of these two tendencies, as the most characteristic of the Orthodox tradition.
With this study, Zizioulas offers: a) The interaction of the various branches of dogmatic theology—Christology, Spirituality, Ecclesiology, and, consequently, a contribution to the liberation of systematic theology from the methodology of Scholasticism, b) The awareness of the deeper theological differences between Orthodox and Western theology, and c) Proposals for bridging these differences with the help of the synthesis of these two types of Pneumatology.
a) The theological conditions for the formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit by the Second Ecumenical Council. The first and basic condition is considered the dialectic of created-uncreated, with which the Fathers of the first four centuries separated their position from ancient Greek philosophy. The main problem was the placement of the Logos in the dialectic structure of the created-uncreated, which problem led to the crisis of Arianism. The decision of the First Ecumenical Council to place the Logos clearly in the area of the uncreated definitively defined the framework, within which the problematic regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit would also move.
The second theological condition was the reflection on the use of the term "essence" in theology, after the problems and reactions caused by the introduction of the term "οὐσία" in the Nicene Creed. At this point, the issue is examined, why Basil the Great did not insist on the use of the term "ὁμοούσιος" for the Holy Spirit, an issue which has caused a wide debate among experts. In this study, the explanation of "tactical" or strategic or pastoral expediency is rejected, and based on the interpretation of the sources as a reason for this position of St. Basil, his reflection on the correctness of the use of the term "substance" is presented. This position is strengthened by the argument that the Second Ecumenical Council not only did not use the term "οὐσία" for the Holy Spirit and preferred to find other terms based on the theology of St. Basil, such as "ὁμότιμος" (“συνδοξαζόμενον” etc.), but also changed from the Nicene Creed the phrase that the Son is born “of the essence of the Father” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς) by deleting the term “οὐσία”, “essence” (τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα, “born of the Father”).
From these observations, the third condition also emerges, that is, the formulation by the Cappadocian Fathers of the theological concept of person or hypostasis, played an important role in the conditions of the Pneumatology of the Second Ecumenical Council. The philosophical position of Basil the Great, that there is no "naked" substance, i.e. without hypostasis-person, elevated the concept of person to a primary ontological category. In this way the Father, i.e., a hypostasis-person, was considered as the "cause" of the Trinitarian existence of God, which is of particular importance for the Filioque problem.
b) After the in-depth examination of the theological conditions, the study proceeds to the systematic analysis of the teaching of the Synod on the Holy Spirit. The terms "Lord", "life-creating", "proceeding from the Father", "with the Father and the Son together worshiped and glorified", etc. are analyzed. From all this analysis it follows that without the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, the teaching of the Council on Saint Spirit is not understandable. Particular emphasis is placed on the phrase "proceeding from the Father"), which is directly connected to the problem of the Filioque, which is thoroughly examined in the light of Cappadocian theology, on which the Second Ecumenical Council is based.
c) When examining the subject of the Filioque, this study insists on the passage of Saint Gregory of Nyssa (Migne PG 45, 133), which recognizes the priority of the birth of the Son over the emanation of the Spirit, but under the inviolable condition that the Father is the only "cause" of both the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. Consequently, the subject of the Filioque depends on whether one accepts the position that the Father alone, that is, one person of the Trinity, is regarded as the ontological cause of divine existence. Locating this complex issue, which has plagued the Church for centuries, in this deeper Theological and Philosophical basis is one of the contributions of this study.
d) Then the study deals with the fate of the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the history of the Council until today. The importance of the theology of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in the formation of Western theology regarding the Filioque and of Photius of Constantinople regarding this subject is examined. The position of the Russian historian Bolotov and others that it is a "theologoumenon" and not a doctrinal difference is rejected, and the problem is located from the theological point of view on the one hand in the problem of the distinction between "theology" and "economy" in Triadology, and on the other to the question of the ontological priority of substance or person in the discourse about God. These two points are considered crucial for the solution of the Filioque problem from an Orthodox point of view.
The other big question is that of God's transcendence in relation to the world. The modern man after the European Enlightenment tends to interpret and understand everything, even God, inwardly. Modern theology, in order not to be considered irrelevant to modern man, has essentially identified the transcendent God with the God of the divine “economy” as He is revealed and known in Christ (Rahner, Moltmann, Mackey, etc.). Orthodox theology under the influence of the Greek Fathers distinguishes the immanent Trinity from the “economic” Trinity, thus leaving beyond the history of salvation in Christ the possibility of an apophatic reference to God. The duty, therefore, of systematic theology is to refer not only to the God of the "economy", that is, to the incarnate, historical God, but also to the being of God as such, distinguishing what God is eternally in His eternal existence from what He is in His "kenosis" in Christ.
Another big issue regarding the God question today is whether the Christian teaching about God can influence the perception about man. The doctrine of God cannot but have something to offer to anthropology, when one accepts the Christian idea of man as the "image of God". It is the duty of theology to demonstrate the consequences of the doctrine of God for anthropology in all its aspects (sociological, cosmological, etc.).
Finally, there is an urgent need to connect the doctrine of God with ecclesiology. It is not permissible to talk about the Church without reference to the Triune God. The problem of the Filioque has ecclesiological implications, which must be pointed out.
With these positions and propositions, Orthodox dogmatic theology faithful to the tradition of the Greek Fathers can articulate a constructive discourse in the modern theological debate about God.
The starting point of the study is the historical transmission of Christianity from the bosom of Judaism, which is now accepted by the research. However, special attention is paid to the penetration of Hellenism into Judaism from the time of M. Alexander and of his successors and the effect he had on Jewish thought. The preaching of Jesus was undoubtedly in terms of cultural elements originally from Jewish-Semitic mentality. Other things are the penetration of the Hellenistic Jews into the bosom of the first Christian communities, the use of the Old Testament in the Greek translation of the Septuagint and finally the separation of the Hellenists from the “Judaizing” Christians with the initiative of Stephen, and above all the personality of Paul—all these they contributed to the entrance of the Greek mentality and thought into the original Christianity, without the latter becoming Hellenized and losing its basically Jewish-Semitic mentality. From this point of view of the degree of influence of Hellenism on Christianity, the theology of Paul and the evangelist John, the Church's perception of mysteries and the organization of the Church are examined in particular. In all of these, a minimal and non-essential influence of Hellenism can be found until the middle of the 2nd century AD. century.
From the middle of the second century, with the appearance of the apologists, the problem of the Hellenization of Christianity arose. Harnack's theory that from that time - and earlier with the appearance of Gnosticism - we have a Hellenization of Christianity is being questioned. The use of appropriate criteria is the main concern of the study, and at this point the whole matter assumes importance not only for history and theology, but also for philosophy.
The basic question, which is raised in the study as a criterion of the whole problem, is whether the ontological interest and question penetrates the Christian thought, and whether and to what extent it displaces the historical approach that characterizes the Jewish mentality. Christology is a typical and key "case" to examine this issue. The study traces the course of Christology from its initial form to its evolution into "ontological" Christology. Other philosophical aspects are also examined, such as the epistemological, the cosmological, etc. The conclusion is that the ontological question, as an eminently “Greek” question, penetrates Christian thought, but does not displace the historical-eschatological element, which Christianity inherits from Jewish tradition. The synthesis of these two elements has since been the main philosophical question in the research of patristic thought. In his other studies, which will be presented below, this problem is followed in its most basic doctrinal and philosophical manifestations throughout the Patristic period. (For a philosophical evaluation of this study, see among others, X. GIANNARA, Schism in Philosophy, 1988, §27).
This extensive study deals with the theological and philosophical investigation of the concept of the person with special reference to the existential problems of man. Its starting point is the problem of human strength and human weakness, i.e. the existence of man at the interface between God and the world, the created and the uncreated.
The human phenomenon emerges precisely at the moment when man seeks to transcend human nature and its limits. The study suggests, based on the history of both theology and philosophy, two ways of dealing with the problem of the limits of creation, as experienced by man. One way looks for the possibilities of transcendence within the nature of man and of creation in general. Ancient Greek thought in all its nuances used a "closed ontology": every being had a nature, which contained everything that that being needed to reach its perfection. No being could become more perfect in its kind by assuming any characteristic, which it did not already have in some way in its nature. Western Christian thought followed basically the same approach. The created was enriched by the Creator with "created grace" (gratia creata), which allows it to go beyond its limits. Man according to Scholastic theology is capax infiniti and capax Dei by nature. The Reformation, mainly with the theology of Luther, questioned this Scholastic position, but in its place introduced the axiom simul justus et peccator, which meant that man is condemned in his state of sinfulness ontologically, and is "justified" only by by the grace of God judicially (and psychologically). Existentialism with Kierkegaard, first, and Heidegger and others, then finds the impasse of existence, and in this impasse tries to find redemption and truth.
The study starts from the acceptance of human weakness, and accepts it as a given on the basis of the Biblical and Greek patristic tradition. Zizioulas therefore rejects the Scholastic notion that man is in nature capax Dei or infiniti. However, he does not accept the Lutheran view of man's ontological condemnation to weakness. Thus, a third solution is sought in the light of Orthodox patristic theology. In this search, the concept of the person emerges as that category that allows the limits of the created to be exceeded without using the path of nature—the limits of nature always remain insurmountable.
In order to understand how the concept of the person acts as a link between the created and the uncreated, this concept is clearly contrasted with that of the individual and the personality. It is clarified that the personalism of Augustine, Boethius and all Western philosophy is essentially based on the concept of nature, in the form of either psychological or logical properties. The person in this case becomes the thinking subject or the "personality".
In the case of Patristic theology or a philosophy inspired by it, the person cannot be found within human nature, but comes to it from without. The study presents examples from art and other forms of creativity, which show that man aims to overcome his limits not with the help of natural forces, but with the paradox of "presence in absence". The concept of presence, by always being offered in the form of absence, proves that it does not come from the realm of the created, but from some other space, in which presence is not blocked by absence. The ontological concept of the person is a concept of absolute recognition of presence, and here it is experienced "tragically" by the created as an absence; it testifies at the same time that there is pure presence "somewhere" outside the created.
After this diagnosis, the study places the whole matter at the Christian doctrinal level. Christology is not simply a matter of redemption from sin (psychological or legal), nor is it the instillation of divine qualities into human nature. Central to Christology is the “hypostatic union,” which means that human nature is incorporated into the true and genuine person, the second person of the Trinity. The Cross testifies that this contact of the genuine person with the created existence automatically threatens the presence with absence (death), but the fact that the person is true purifies the presence of the element of absence (in the Resurrection). Thus Christology is redemptive from death, and not just from sin. The insistence of the Orthodox tradition on the Resurrection of Christ as the center of faith, and not on the Cross, as is the case in the West, testifies that man is not satisfied with the limits of the created, which include in their nature "absence", death, (Heidegger's "being-toward-death"), but seeks to transcend them. But this transcendence is not achieved with a possibility given to human nature, but through a person (the Son of the Trinity). This is how the insistence of the Christology of Chalcedon is explained in that there is one person of Christ, and this is the person of the Son of the Trinity, “in whom” man is “divinized” by going beyond the limits of the created, not psychologically or "physically", but through the "hypostatic" (i.e. personal) union" (Cyril of Alexandria).
This study, which is necessarily incompletely presented here for the sake of brevity, is an essay on systematic theology, in which the philosophical extensions of dogmatic theology are presented.
Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985).
This work, of which the English version is greatly expanded, aims to offer a synthesis of individual doctrinal issues with the help of the concept of society as an ontological category. Its purpose is to demonstrate the inner and deep interconnection of the doctrines of God, Christology, Spirituality, Ecclesiology and Christian anthropology and their common ontological content.
The long introduction (pp. 15-26) begins with the position that the Church is not just an institution, but a “way of being,” and that it cannot be understood without reference to the being of God, the being of man and in the being of the world. In Patristic theology there is rarely talk about the Church, while there is a very broad talk about the being of God—not about whether God exists or not, which was not a question for almost any thinking person at that time, but about how God exists. It is precisely in dealing with the “how” of divine existence in the Patristic period that the concept of communion (κοινωνία) as an ontological category appears. God exists as a Trinity of persons, and his Trinitarian existence does not follow logically from His essence, but determines it ontologically, since the divine essence is hypostasized only as persons-hypostases; without the persons the essence remains "non-hypostasized" (ἀνυπόστατος), i.e. non-existent. God's being is understood only as communion.
This ontology, which is decisively determined by the concept of communion, is possible only if we identify God with the Father, and not with the essence of God. At this point, Greek patristic theology differs radically from western theology. The latter, from Augustine onwards, gave logical priority to essence, and considered the persons of the Trinity as secondary ontologically: God is understood first as essence (as unity) and then as persons (as plurality). In Greek Patristic theology, however, in faithful continuation with the Biblical idea of God, God is first and foremost the Father. But the concept of Father is by definition a relational concept, which introduces the concept of communion into the very concept of God. Thus, the unity, the “one,” which is expressed by the one essence, does not ontologically precede the “many” (of the Trinity). The concept of “many” is ontologically integrated into the concept of “one,” since “εἷς” is the Father, meaning a concept of relationship and communion by definition.
This basic theological and ontological principle is followed in this book in its consistency with fundamental theological and philosophical issues. Specifically:
a) In the first chapter (English edition, pp. 27-65), entitled “Person and Being,” the concept of person as an ontological category is examined. A review is made of ancient Greek and Roman thought regarding the idea of the person, and the course of this concept in Patristic theology is followed. The processes that take place in Greek Patristic thought on the occasion of the debates on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity are examined in depth. At this point, the thought of the Cappadocian Fathers emerges as of decisive importance, not only for theology, but also for philosophy. With the bold step they take, to extract the term “hypostasis” from “substance” (οὐσία), with which it has always been associated, and to identify it with the term “person,” which has always had only a secondary ontological content (persona), they give the term person a primary ontological meaning (=hypostasis), and the term “hypostasis” the dimension and content of the relationship and communion, which the term “person” has always had. Furthermore, by locating the ontological “cause” in the Father, and not in the essence of God, the person is elevated to a primary ontological concept, which determines the being of God. Thus, being ceases to be a self-evident and self-existent necessity, and becomes the result of the person’s freedom. God exists because a person, the Father, freely wants to exist. It is a freedom which, due to the “relational” meaning of the term “Father” can only be understood as an affirmation of the existence of other persons (the Son and the Spirit), and therefore as communion and love—concepts that thus also acquire an ontological content.
Then this position is followed in its anthropological and ecclesiological consequences with reference to the tragedy of the human person and its transcendence in Christology and Ecclesiology.
b) In the second chapter (English edition, pp. 67-122), which bears the title “Truth and Communion,” the subject of truth as it appears in the thought of the Fathers is examined in the following form: how is it possible to consider the truth simultaneously from the perspective of the “nature” (φύσις) or “essence” (οὐσία) of beings (ancient Greek approach), of the path towards the eschatological outcome of history (Jewish approach), and of the Christological claim that the truth is Christ. An examination of the main currents of the patristic thought follows, the various approaches to the subject of truth from the Apologists to iconoclasm are analyzed, and the efforts of the Fathers to synthesize the Jewish, the ancient Greek and the Christian approaches to this subject are highlighted. In conclusion, it is established that the Greek Fathers achieved this synthesis by identifying the concept of truth with that of communion: the truth of beings emerges through the fact of personal society.
Then the application of this principle to human existence is examined. The split between truth and communion is established due to the objectification of beings, from which appears as an epistemological condition the distancing of the knowing subject from the known object, and the need for the epistemological principle of “adaequatio” between “rei” and “intellectus.” Reference is made to the efforts of modern philosophy by Kierkegaard, Marx, Heidegger, etc. to free the search for truth from its entrapment in the subject-object opposition, and the dead ends of these efforts are demonstrated. Finally, the Patristic synthesis is applied to the main areas of Christian dogmatic teaching, such as Christology, Pneumatology, anthropology and ecclesiology, and conclusions are drawn. One of these conclusions is that the patristic synthesis between truth and communion facilitates the encounter of theology with the post-Einstein positions of the natural sciences, which not only introduced the concept of relativity into cosmology, but also annulled the form of juxtaposition subject-object in epistemology with the well-known position of quantum physics that the researcher and his object mutually influence each other during the experiment.
c) In the following chapters (English edition, p. 123-260) the Patristic synthesis of truth and communion, as well as the ontology of the person, is applied to the five areas of dogmatic theology: (i) In the relationship of Christology and Pneumatology with ecclesiology. (ii) In the concept of the catholicity of the Church. (iii) In the concept of apostolicity of the Church. (iv) In the concept of the priesthood and the ministries of the Church, and (v) In the concept of the local Church. In this way, an inductive path is made from the most theoretical and philosophical to the most practical issues of dogmatic theology.
This book, as characterized by the book reviews, but also by its wide use in a number of works, both more general and specifically dedicated to my work, synthesizes the entire Orthodox dogmatic theology into one, highlighting the broader philosophical and its existential consequences (See Reviews).
Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, ed. Paul McPartlan (London: T&T Clark, 2006). Pages, xiv+ 315.
This book was praised as “a great book and a converting one”, in fact “a comprehensive model for the whole of Christian theology,” by the then archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (Zizioulas 2006: xi-xii), whose comments further witness to the remarkable ecumenical impact of Zizioulas’ thought.
“Only a theologian of John Zizioulas’s stature would attempt to reconcile the polarities of communion and otherness,” remarks Gill Κ. Gοulding (Theological Studies, Sep 2008; 69, 3, p. 725). What has distinguished Zizioulas as a theologian has been not only his command of the Orthodox theological tradition, but also his knowledge of Western philosophical and theological literature, especially in the contemporary period.
This work builds on his Being as Communion (1985), where Zizioulas highlighted the significance of communion for Christian life and unity. In what is de facto a companion volume, Zizioulas focuses on communion as the foundation for otherness and true identity. The life of the Trinity is the focus for the reality of otherness that originates in the distinctions of the persons and unity of the Godhead. Otherness is thus ontological. Since human beings are made in the divine image, they reflect this reality. Zizioulas understands communion as generating otherness.
The book is a collection of previously published but updated articles with some significant new material, notably the opening, lengthy chapter, “On Being Other,” where Zizioulas explores the ontology of otherness. In particular he asserts that the divine gift of human freedom refers not merely to the will but also to "the freedom to be other in an absolute ontological sense” (11). God, Christ, church, nature, esthetics, and ecclesial existence are all foci for exploration culminating in a eucharistic ethos where “faith is an act of gratitude to every other” (98).
The eight chapters of the book deal with an ontology of otherness, an ontology of personhood, a theology of personhood, three chapters on aspects of the Trinity, a chapter on some questions of Chalcedonian Christology, and a final reflection on ecclesiology. It is the first three chapters mentioned especially that can contribute much to our current thinking about otherness, cultural plurality, and interaction in a pluralistic world. Zizioulas offers the outlines of an ontology of culture that can deal with both modern and postmodern senses of culture in a way that few have.
In a very useful introduction to the volume, Zizioulas notes how otherness, and the sense of the Other has been considered in the West as something oppositional to the self, and hence potentially inimical to it. Arguing from the Cappadocians’ and Maximus the Confessor’s understanding of hypostasis or person, he maintains that the very nature of personhood is relational. Hence, there can be no self without the other. He is careful to distinguish this sense of person from the Western, modern, and psychological sense of the person as an individual with a collection of attributes. He founds his notion of person on the concepts of relationality, uniqueness, and freedom. “Person” in this sense is not a specification derivative from substance or nature (ousia or physis) but the enactment of these in a way that only makes them real at all. Nonetheless, there is in human beings a tension between substance and person, whereas in God these coincide.
To Zizioulas, a necessity for understanding communion and otherness, one must understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The Introduction of the work focuses on this discussion and its implications for understanding ecclesiology, morality and anthropology. The chapters that follow then approach the subject in different ways, moving from otherness and its absolute ontological significance (Chapter One) to the concept of the person in the following chapters. This section is dependent on the teachings of the Greek Fathers, especially the Cappadocians, on the Trinity. Chapters six and seven focus on the “Divine Economy,” with an emphasis on the doctrine of creation resulting in otherness as “natural otherness.”
Α final original gem in this masterly work is a consideration of ecclesial mysticism, where Ζizioulas focuses the eschatological dimension of Eucharist and the vibrant trajectory of divine love that illumines "a mysticism of communion and relationship through which one is so united with the ‘Other’ as to form one indivisible unity through which otherness emerges clearly” (307).
The theological problems of otherness and freedom, and how this relates to communion, must be considered on various levels: that of otherness as part of creation, of relationship to the Creator, of relationship to other human beings, as well as an understanding of interecclesial relationships. The concept of communion also pertains on these levels.
It was noted that Zizioulas’ work is rather difficult to read without a basic understanding of the philosophical and theological concepts being discussed, but it is an important and rewarding study, nonetheless. A basic grounding in the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers would be of value, but the author’s explanations of their teachings is very understandable. See, for example, his explanation of asymmetry and causation in God's Trinitarian existence in Chapter Three. The book will be of great benefit to those who do make their way through it. It is exemplary of what the Orthodox tradition in theology can offer the world church today.
Asked in The Tablet, if his “ontological system likely to convince secular philosophers?”, Zizioulas answered: “Convincing others about my position is too high an ambition for me to have: I am fully aware that secular philosophers operate with an ontology different from the one I am proposing in my book—or, in many cases, with no ‘ontology’ at all. My aim is to give a response to the fundamental existential questions that have pre-occupied philosophy from its inception, such as the meaning of being human, of being «other», of love, freedom, death etc., drawing from the theological tradition of the Greek Fathers, in particular. In so doing I try to take into consideration what secular philosophers have said and to be in some kind of dialogue with them.”
This is the first volume of Zizioulas’ University lectures in Dogmatic Theology. In this volume, apart from the introductions, the concept of dogma, the author presents the definition and history of Dogmatics, the methodology of Dogmatics as Systematic Theology, the epistemological conditions of Dogmatics (about knowledge and about faith) and the doctrine about God (mainly "Theology" according to the Patristic understanding). His particular contribution is that the doctrines of the Church are not simply set forth, as formulated in the past, but interpreted in relation to the fundamental subject problems of man and the world.
This volume was supposed to be complemented by a second one, which would include the other doctrines of the Church (the “Economy,” according to the patristic terminology).
Ecclesiological Issues - Θέματα ἐκκλησιολογίας
These include Zizioulas university lectures. In all these the same method of interpretation of doctrines is followed.
