Ecclesiology has been characterized as the pre-eminent branch of theology in our century. The modern search for the unity of the divided Christian Churches and denominations in the context of the Ecumenical Movement contributed to this promotion of ecclesiology. Many Orthodox theologians, among them especially John Karmiris, the late teacher of John Zizioulas, wrote studies of ecclesiological content, which cover many aspects of the subject. Zizioulas’ personal participation in this effort began with his doctoral dissertation, which had as its subject the unity of the Church and continued with his active participation in the theological debates within the Ecumenical Movement and the bilateral and multilateral theological dialogues. The basis of his research has always been Patristic theology, as his doctoral thesis proves, but his ultimate goal has always remained the organic connection of Ecclesiology with the other doctrines of the faith (Trinitarian theology, Christology, Pneumatology, anthropology, and eschatology), as proven by his later studies. The main points of Zizioulas’ contribution to this effort could be summarized as follows:

a) The organic connection of Ecclesiology with other areas of Dogmatic Theology.

In the methodology prevailing since the time of Western Scholasticism, the doctrine of the Church was always examined independently and without reference to the other doctrines of the faith. This method is also observed in the Orthodox Dogmatics of Makarios of Moscow, Christos Androutsos, and Panagiotis Trembelas. In the works of the late Georges Florovsky and John Karmiris, teachers of John Zizioulas, a change in this method can be observed as the tendency to associate ecclesiology mainly with Christology (or the Church as the “body of Christ”). There had already been a shift in this direction by Roman Catholic theologians in our time, such as E. Mersh with his two-volume work “Le corps mystique du Christ,” which clearly influenced, at least, Florovsky. At the same time, tendencies to overemphasize Pneumatology in ecclesiology (the Church as a communion of the Holy Spirit) developed in Orthodox Systematic theology, mainly among the Russians VI. Lossky and B. Bobrinskoy (it was already preceded in the last century by the Slavophile movement in Russia with the primary representative Alexei Khomiakov and the idea of Sobornost). The late Greek theologian Nikolaos Nisiotis seems to have followed these trends, albeit with some caution.

According to Zizioulas, the dialogue between these two trends in Ecclesiology (Christological and Pneumatological) left two significant gaps to which the attention of his texts was directed. The first is the connection of ecclesiology with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the second is the correct synthesis between Christology and Pneumatology in ecclesiology. As pointed out by the doctoral theses that dealt with Zizioulas’ work, the originality of his contribution consists in the fact that with his publications (a) the correct synthesis between Christology and Pneumatology in ecclesiology was demonstrated for the first time, and ( b) ecclesiology was placed in the context of Trinitarian theology. More about these two points will be said in the analysis of Zizioulas’ publications on this website.

Similar observations apply to the connection of ecclesiology with other areas of Dogmatics, such as anthropology, cosmology, and eschatology. For the first time in modern theology, an attempt is made to connect ecclesiology with the concept of man as a person, as well as with the concept of creation. At this point, the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers and Maximus the Confessor was strong. In reference, on the other hand, to the contemporary concerns of Biblical and newer Western systematic theology, Zizioulas’ ecclesiology is placed in the context of the dialectic between history and eschatology with the view of the Church as an “image of the last days,” which experiences in history the conflict between “already and not yet,” that is, the expectation and anticipation of the Kingdom of God in historical conditions of struggle with evil.

In conclusion, this broadening of the horizon of ecclesiology, on the one hand, frees Orthodox Dogmatics from the Western methodology of Scholasticism, which is a persistent request of the newer Orthodox theology; on the other hand, it makes ecclesiology a matter of broader importance both for the whole of theology as well as for the existential problems of man, as we will see below.

b) The consideration of the structure and functions of the Church in the light and experience of the Eucharistic community.

One of the biggest problems, which deeply divides the Christian world, is that of the structure of the Church and its functions. Roman Catholic ecclesiology gives priority to the universal structure of the Church, which leads to its centralized administration and the universal primacy of power of the pope. Protestant ecclesiology, on the other hand, sees the Church as a set of essentially unconnected local communities and, in the final analysis, as “the totality of believers in Christ,” which leads to individualism. The question of exactly where Orthodox ecclesiology is placed in relation to this problem is not simple, nor has it been satisfactorily answered by Orthodox ecclesiology.

Much of John Zizioulas’ publications try to answer this question. Until now, Orthodox Ecclesiology seems to be divided between the Roman Catholic and Protestant trends. Many, such as Androutsos, Trembelas, et al., tend towards the Roman Catholic view, according to which the universal unity of the Church precedes the local Church: the Church is a universal unity, of which the local Churches are “parts.” The primacy of the pope is avoided by introducing the authority of the synodical institution in the position of the pope. In this way, however, there is a risk that the Synod will be raised to superpower over the local bishops; that is, we will have a “synod centralization.” Still, others, led by the Russian Orthodox theologian N. Afanasiev, supported the opinion that where the Holy Eucharist is celebrated, there is also the complete Church, and consequently, there is no reason for a universal institutional unity of the Church. This school is known as “eucharistic ecclesiology.”

Already from the preparation of his doctoral thesis, Zizioulas was faced with this dilemma. Based on the study of the sources of the Patristic era, he came to the following conclusions of a systematic nature, which have now been accepted internationally, as well as within Orthodoxy, and they also influenced the jurisprudence of the Hellenic Council of State regarding specific points.

(i) The opinion that the local Church, united around its bishop, is not a “part” of the Church, but a complete and “catholic” Church, puts forth as inevitable the position of John Zizioulas due to the fact that it is witnessed by all ancient sources. Orthodox ecclesiology is clearly based on the idea of the universality of each local Church, which is why priority cannot be given to the global organization of the Church. However, given that all local Churches derive their ecclesiality and “universality” from the fact that in the Holy Eucharist, they constitute the “whole Christ,” they cannot be understood without unity among themselves. The Holy Eucharist as the body of Christ is the basis not only of the catholicity of each local Church but also of the unity of the local Churches in one body. Thus, Zizioulas corrects Afanasiev’s localist and Protestant position through the axiom of “eucharistic ecclesiology” itself while thus avoiding the Roman Catholic centralization of the “universal Church.” The notion that the unity of the global Church is a unity of “parts” or “particular” of Churches is contrasted with Zizioulas’ view that we have a unity of identity of complete circles, which coincide with each other. The whole problem is related to the philosophical question of the relationship between the one and the many, which will be discussed here. The importance of this position, especially for the relationship between Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology in our days, is obvious. This, after all, also explains the interest created for the positions of John Zizioulas in the circles of Roman Catholic theologians, resulting in the preparation of many doctoral and master theses, which will be discussed on this website.

(ii) The position that the bishop derives his authority from his capacity as presiding of the eucharistic assembly of his local Church. This position, developed for the first time with Zizioulas’ doctoral thesis on the unity of the Church, has now been established, with significant consequences both for the inter-Christian theological dialogue and for the perception of the bishop within Orthodoxy itself.

In terms of inter-Christian dialogue, this position had the consequence of integrating the institution of the bishop within the church community and not being considered as something above the community. This particularly affected Roman Catholic perceptions of episcopal authority and brought Protestants closer to a positive assessment of the episcopal institution, which they traditionally rejected. These developments are judged internationally as important for the approach of divided Christians.

Within Orthodoxy itself, on the other hand, Zizioulas' position that the bishop derives his authority from his capacity as the head of the eucharistic assembly contributed to the strengthening of the Orthodox consciousness of the interdependence between the bishop, presbyters and laity since the bishop is understood as a head of the ecclesial community.

Especially concerning the relationship between Church and State in Greece, this documented position of Zizioulas resulted in the revision of the charter from the time of P. Poulitsas from the point of view that the bishop is an administrative body and his authority has no doctrinal content. This revision was promoted in the jurisprudence of the Council of State by the advisor Anastasios Marinos (see his work Church and State Relations, 1984) using the research of Zizioulas and referring to it as a basis.