THE IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY

OF AN ORTHODOX-PENTECOSTAL DIALOGUE
(A Positive Message from Athens)

by Petros Vassiliadis

His Eminence Metropolitan Damaskinos Papandreou has not only successfully served
as an active bishop of the Greek Orthodox diaspora (in Switzerland) under the
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but was also pioneer in the ecumenical
dialogue in almost all its various facets: inter-Orthodox – in his capacity as the Secretary
at certain preliminary stages of the forthcoming Great and Holy Synod of the Orthodox
Churches – bilateral – as the co-Chairman of the official (and in some respects
successfully terminated) dialogue between the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox
Churches – and inter-faith – as the initiator and the leading figure of various Orthodox-
Jewish and Orthodox-Muslim dialogues of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 1 His service to
our Orthodox Church in this delicate field of Orthodox witness in today’s world has
encouraged many of us who are struggling to convey the profound meaning of
Orthodoxy in various Chritian, religious and secular contexts and traditions. As a small
and humble antidoron to his great service to contemporary Orthodoxy, for which he also
experienced some bitterness and dissappointments, I decided to dedicate to his
Festschrift some first thoughts and reflections on the importance and necessity of an
Orthodox-Pentecostal dialogue.
It is true that Orthodoxy and Pectecostalism form two quite opposite Christian
traditions; but only when one looks at their practice, spirituality and every day life,
especially their mission praxis. If, however, one looks at the theological production that
is being published by Pentecostals in various ecumenical books and journals, one gets a
completely different picture; the similarities even in theological terminology are
tremendous. Within the ecumenical movement the Orthodox have always been the main
proponents of Pneumatology, an issue that is dynamically brought into the the foreground
also by Pentecostals. Therefore, I firmly believe that the time has come for a more
1
Cf. Metropolitan of Switzerland Damaskinos, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Inter-Orthodox
Initiatives,” Phanar. 400 Years, Ecumenical Patriarchate’s edition, Constantinople 2001, pp. 471-496 (in
Greek; also idem, Zur Vorbereitung des Panorthodoxes Konzils, Düsseldorf 1997); Gr. Ziakas, “The
Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Dialogue with Islam,” Phanar, pp. 575-725 (in Greek) etc.
profound encounter and an honest theological dialogue between these two streams of
Christianity.
In addition to various unofficial meetings and theological exchanges between
Orthodox and Evangelicals of a Pentecostal type within the multilateral dialogue,2 an
important encounter has taken place in the last World Mission Conference, organised by
the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) of the World Council of
Churches (WCC) in Athens (Agios Andreas, May 9-16 2005). In the history of World
Mission Conferences, this conference was unique in many respects.
The very theme of the Conference raised again the crucial question: How is mission
conceived in today’s multicultural setting? The two central themes “healing” and
“reconciliation” point to a fruitful direction. Although globalization has brought different
countries into closer contact, at the same time the clashes of cultures, religions and
economic interests are brought in the foreground. Moreover, the events of September
11th and the subsequent “war on terror” divided the world even deeper. The economic
policies broaden the gap between poor and rich regions, countries, and “worlds”. The
global network of communications had obvious positive aspects, but it also left whole
people displaced and excluded.
At the same time, living in the age of “post-modernity”, we experience the resurgence
of religion, unfortunately not in the form a healthy and progressive world Christian
mission would expect, but mostly in a rather conservative form. With the dangerous rise
of all kinds of “New Age” phenomena, which display a thirst on the part of “modern”
(mostly western) world for spiritual experience, and with the revival and “resurgence” of
the old-fashioned aggressive methods of proselytistic activities (especially in Eastern
Europe), what the world mission movement needs today is an understanding of mission
as a reconciling task. And here the contribution – and the self-critical assessment – of
both the Orthodox and the Pentecostals is essential.
What, however, made this conference especially unique was the fact that it was held at
the invitation of the Church of Greece and hosted by all the other local Churches. The
decision of the Church of Greece to invite and host such an ecumenical Conference, the
2
Cf. Huibert van Beek-Georges Lemopoulos (ed.), Proclaiming Christ Today. Orthodox-Evangelical
Consultation Alexandria, 10-15 July 1995, WCC and Syndesmos, Geneva 1995; and Huibert van Beek-
Georges Lemopoulos (ed.), Turn to God. Orthodox Evangelical Consultation Hamburg, 30 March-4
April, 1998,WCC Geneva 1998.
first ever to be held in an Orthodox setting, reveals a practical openness of that Church
towards the ecumenical movement, and the WCC in particular, in the midst of problems
of communication between the Orthodox Churches and the WCC. The well-known
objections concerning a number of issues (from the decision-making proceedures, and
the forms of common prayer, to ecclesiology) have recently led the WCC to review its
policy with regard to the Orthodox, and accepting the recommendations of a “Special
Commission on the Orthodox Presence in the WCC” 3 to start a new era on the WCC-
Orthodox relations.
The Church of Greece, though one of the founders of the WCC, for the last fourty
years or so has in effect limited her participation to it to the least necessary point. The
present Archbishop of Athens and all Greece Mgr. Christodoulos realized – if one
interprets his thoughts from carefully phrased statements in almost all his synodical
addresses, as well as his inaugural speech – that this practice was not fruitful at all for the
Church. Rather it gave space to the most conservative, anti-ecumenical, and in some
cases even fanatical segments within the Church of Greece, which in the long term would
undermind her witness. His desire to lead his Church to change this unhealthy situation
was clearly signaled three years ago in his openning address to an international
symposium in Thessaloniki (1-3 June, 2003).4
With this in mind, and having been assigned the task of representing the Church of
Greece in the Commission on World Mission Conference of WCC for the period between
its 1998 Harare and 2006 Porto Alegre General Assemblies, I recommended (through the
normal synodical proceedures) the invitation and hosting of the 2005 World Mission
Conference, as a tangible sign of this new direction of our Church. And following a
formal decision by the Holy Synod to host this important event, I put all my energy,
together with a number of dedicated Church personell, in the organization of this XIV
World Mission Conference, counting the 1910 Edinburgh historic meeting as first.

3
For a detailed presentation and assessment from an Orthodox perspective of the significance of the
Special Commission see Anastasia Vassiliadou, The Participation of the Orthodox in the WCC in the
Light of the Recommendations of the Special Commission (M.Th. dissertation submitted in the
Department of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, immediately after the 2005 Athens
World Mission Conference, in Greek).
4
The Proceedings of this symposium, with the Archbishop’s inaugural speech first, were published by the
Apostoliki Diakonia, with the blessings of the Holy Synod, under the title Orthodox Theology and
Ecumenical Dialogue (edited by the undersigned), Athens 2005.
 In many respects this event was a great success, despite the fact that on the local level
a unique opportunity was lost by the Church of Greece to use the 2005 World Mission
Conference (the agenda of which, as the Archbishop himself admitted, was set “with
Orthodox sensitivities in mind”, a statement quoted many times in the “Listeners’
Reports5) to successfully lead her people to an ecumenical awareness and give a strong
signal that Orthodoxy has a witnessing role to play in the wider community of Christians
all over the world.6 On a global level that mission conference has been positively valued,
among other minor things, as an important step towards an Orthodox-Pentecostal
dialogue. After all, one of the purposes of the 2005 World Mission Conference, was to
underline that all Christians are called in Christ to become reconciling and healing
communities. A concrete manifestation of such a calling was therefore to create safe
spaces for a fruitful dialogue between various theological traditions. One of the
highlights, as we shall see below, of that event was these preliminary steps in regard to a
serious theological dialogue between two traditions that at a first glance seem to occupy
the extreme ends of the Christian spectrum: Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism. And that was
a positive message from Athens.
***
At a synaxis (the Greek - and to a certain degree Orthodox - name given to the
conventional workshops in the world mission conference) under the title “Reconciliation
and Mission. Orthodox and Pentecostal Perspectives” I was asked to introduce the
subject from the Orthodox perspective. What follows is taken from that introductory
statement of mine.
The pneumatological dimension of our Christian identity is being slowly but steadily
developed in ecumenical theology and in contemporary theology of mission. And to this
end the 2005 Mission Conference has contributed a lot. Pneumatological emphasis is
evident in both preparatory working documents: “Mission as ministry of reconciliation”
and “Healing and Mission”.7 In the ecumenical dialogue, of course, the consolidation of
5
See below.
6
Fearing the expected Old-Calendarist reactions and the tiny but vocal conservative minority within her
flock, which on the very day of the closing “sending-out” section at the Areopagus, the very site where
almost two thousand years ago St. Paul delivered his speech, organized an Anti-Conference, the Church
of Greece at the last moment decided to give a low profile to her initiative.
7
Both these preparatory documents are now available in “You Are the Light of the World (Matthew 5:14).
Statements on Mission by the World Council of Churches, 1980-2005, WCC Publications, Geneva
the trinitarian theology as a useful tool in almost all ecclesiological, sociological, moral
etc., and above all missiological, reflections was a further evidence. The trinitarian
revolution in contemporary Christian theology, is strongly felt across denominational
boundaries – from post-Vatican II Catholicism to evangelicalism – and is in fact due to
the rediscovery of the theology of the Holy Spirit of the undivided Christian Church. And
this rediscovery, at least in my view, relulted in abandoning the old medieval (but also
later) mission paradigm, which was founded on a Christocentric universalism, in some
cases developed into a christomonistic expansionism and an aggresive imperialism.8
The second parameter is an increasing awareness of the liturgical dimension of our
Christian self-understanding. In Athens the conference itself was organized with a
liturgical flow in all its activities, something quite unusual in previous missionary events,
let alone the slogan which was shaped in a prayerful manner, i.e. as an invocation of the
Holy Spirit to heal and reconcile; in other words as a radical judgment to let the Holy
Spirit to take the initiative in mission, not us (historical churches, missionaries, mission
agencies etc.). The importance of liturgy is being underlined in post-modernity 9 as a
significant element of the Christian witness – maybe not as central yet as the
proclamation of the word, but certainly as a constitutive element. The exclusive emphasis
of the old mission paradigm on the rational comprehension of truth, and as a result of it
on the verbal proclamation of the Christian message, gave its place to a more holistic
understanding of mission in post-modernity.10 In addition, a new holistic understanding of
healing, even of a miraculous healing, widely (and for some successfully or effectively)
practiced by Pentecostals, challenges – and of course is challenged by – an
overwhelming rational attidude of modernism, to which the majority of western

2005, pp. 90-126 and 127-162 respectively.

8
More on this in my “Beyond Christian Universalism: The Church’s Witness in a Multicultural Society,”
in Scholarly Annual of the Theological School of Thessaloniki, n.s. Department of Theology, Vol. 9
(1999), pp. 309-320.
9
Cf. my quite recently published books Lex orandi. Liturgical Theology and Liturgical Renewal,
Idiomela 5: Indiktos, Athens 2005; and Post-modernity and t5he Church. The Challenge of Orthodoxy,
Akritas, Athens 2002 (both in Greek).
10
Both these two dimensions are closely linked with the eschatological understanding of the Holy Spirit
and the eschatological understanding of the Church. The eschatology constitutes the central and primary
aspect of the Church. Hence the priority of the Kingdom of God in all ecclesiological considerations.
Everything belongs to the Kingdom. The Church in her institutional expression does not administer all
reality; she only prepares the way to the Kingdom, in the sense that she is an image if it.
Christianity was forced to surrender, or at least accommodate itself. 11 The rapid growth
of the Pentecostal movement, with their emphasis on physical healing through the power
of the Holy Spirit, will certainly challenge all secularized attitudes of Christianity. The
rediscovery of excorcism, together with a renewed interest in demonology, will certainly
be encountered with the Orthodox conception of healing (ἴασις) – beyond physical curing
(θεραπεία) – and the openness of the Orthodox Churches to transcendent and awe
inpiring realities.
So far so good. In order, however, that we move forward, beyond the issues that unite
Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism, it is necessary to establish a sound theological basis. We
need to examine whether we insist on a universal proselytizing mission, or on a witness
to the world of the Church’s eschatological experience. This was, in fact, made possible
by the theology of the Holy Spirit. And this development was the result of the
fundamental assumption of the trinitarian theology, “that God in God’s own self is a life
of communion and that God’s involvement in history aims at drawing humanity and
creation in general into this communion with God’s very life”.12
After all, one cannot overlook the fact that the Holy Spirit, in the Bible (but also in the
early patristic tradition13) is first and foremost eschatologically- (Acts 2:17ff) and
communion- (2 Cor 13:13) oriented. One cannot also ignore that from the time of the
New Testament onwards two types of Pneumatology have been developed: one
“historical” and one “eschatological”. The first type, the “historical”, is more familiar in
the West to the present day, and understands the Holy Spirit as fully depended on Christ,
as being the agent of Christ to fulfill the task of mission. One clear result of this type of
Pneumatology from the past history of the Church is the famous filioque controversy, but
also the aggressive and expansionist attitude of Christian witness in more recent mission
activities. The second type of Pneumatology has been more consistently developed in the
East and understands the Holy Spirit as the source of Christ. It also understands the

11
Peter Berger, a well-known sociologist, has described the attitude of the Church toward the modernist
revolution in terms of two opposite positions: accomodation and resistance (P. Berger, The Sacred
Canopy. Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, Doubleday, New York 1967, pp. 156ff.; also pp.
106ff).
12
I. Bria (ed.), Go Forth in Peace, WCC Publications: Geneva 1986, p. 3.
13
This is quite evident in the Orthodox hymns of the Feast of Pentecost.
Church in terms more of coming together (i.e as the eschatological synaxis of the people
of God in his Kingdom) than of going forth for mission.14
Taking this second type of Pneumatology seriously into consideration, and building
upon the eschatological understanding of the Church,15 one unavoidably concludes that
the mission of the Church deals with the problem of ethics, i.e. the problem of
overcoming the evil in the world, not primarily as a moral and social issue, but mainly –
and for some even exclusively – as an ecclesial one. The moral and social responsibility
of Christians, i.e. their mission in today’s pluralistic world, is the logical consequence of
their ecclesial (i.e. eschatological) self-consciousness. This meens that mission is the
outcome, not the primary of Christian theology. That is why for Orthodoxy what
constitutes the essence of the Church is not her mission but the Eucharist, the Divine
Liturgy;16 the mission is the meta-liturgy, the Liturgy after the Liturgy. The preparatory
documents clearly underlines the reconciliation as the primary precondition of the
Eucharist, which thus automatically becomes a primary of mission.17
The above two types of Pneumatology, together with the two ecclesiological and
missiological perspectives which came out of them, survived to the present ecumenical
era. Today’s world mission in order to be consistent with the idea of “Common Christian
Witness”, and more importantly faithful to the tradition of the undivided Church, needs
to proceed to a theological synthesis of the above two types of Pneumatology, of
ecclesiology, and above all of missiology. And this is something to which a serious
Orthodox-Pentecostal theological dialogue can contribute a lot. Of course, Pneumatology

14
J. Zizioulas, “Implications ecclésiologiques de deux types de pneumatologie,” Communio Sanctorum.
Mélagnes offerts à Jean Jacques von Almen, Labor et Fides, Geneva 1982, pp. 141-154.
15
In the Orthodox Church even the episcopocentric structure of the Church is seen as an essential part of
the eschatological vision of the Church. The bishop e.g. as the presiding primus inter pares in love over
the eucharistic community, has very seldom been understood as a vicar or representative, or ambassador
of Christ, but as an image of Christ. So with the rest of the ministries of the Church: they are not
parallel to, or given by, but identical with those of, Christ (J. Zizioulas, “The Mystery of the Church in
Orthodox Tradition,” One in Christ 24 (1988), pp. 294-303)
16
The imporance of Liturgy has been recently reaffirmed by cultural anthropologists as a constitutive
element of all religious systems, and certainly of Christianity. The Eucharist, heart and center of
Christian Liturgy, in its authentic perception is widely now accepted, especially within the ecumenical
dialogues (multilateral and bilateral) as a proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom of God, as symbol and
image of an alternative reality, which was conceived before all creation by God the Father in his mystical
plan (the mysterion in the biblical sense), was inaugurated by our Lord, and is permanently sustained by
the Holy Spirit.
17
“Mission as ministry of reconciliation”, “You Are the Light of the World, WCC Publications, Geneva
2005, § 30 p. 114.
cannot be relegated to an isolated doctrine. Pneumatology was always, and should always
be, in close connexion with Christology, to such an extend that one can now talk about a
Christology pneumatologically conditioned and vice-versa.
This comparatively new methodology in mission theology was strongly proposed
mainly (but certainly not exclusively) by the Orthodox, who experience a renaissance in
missionary activity, but also – and consequently – in missiological reflection. And in
contemporary mission theology both these dimensions could not have found a stronger
affirmation and a better application than in the slogan of the Athens World Mission
Conference “COME HOLY SPIRIT, HEAL AND RECONCILE”.
***
The above preliminary and very sketchy reflection was followed by similar views and
concerns from the Pentecostal side, but mainly by enthusiastic interventions from
renowned missiologists who attended the synaxis. The necessity of an honest theological
dialogue, which has of course to be preceeded by a loving encounter between Orthodoxy
and Pentecostalism, is clearly evidenced in the “Listeners’ reports” of the Athens 2005
World Mission Conference.
After the adoption by the Executive Committee of the WCC of the recommendations
of the “Special Commission on the Orthodox Presence in the WCC”, it was decided by
the CWME to take seriously – and implement for the first time – the idea of consensus,
which in turn resulted in abandoning the old practice of adopting official documents. The
only document adopted by the Conference was a short “Letter from Athens to the
Christian Churches, Networks and Communities”.18 The “Listeners’ Reports”,19
therefore, express the spirit of the conference and is the only reliable source to discover
the general feelings, the atmosphere and the main concerns of the participants. Coming
from a wide regional and denominational basis these reports provide, in one sense, the
expectations of all those engaged in mission and the ecumenical dialogue, thus providing
a platform for the future of mission and ecumenism.
8 out of 11 listeners – carefully selected “theologians and missiologists from all over
the world and from various spiritual backgrounds to participate in the Athens conference

18
First published in IRM 94 (2005), pp. 322-325.
19
The entire July 2005 issue of the above IRM, No 374, was devoted to these reports under the general title
“Athens 2005-Listeners’ Reports”, pp. 352-439.
with the intention to discern important trends”20 – have underlined the importance of the
Orthodox-Pentecostal encounter in the conference (five of them directly and another
three indirectly), which was of course made manifest in more than one ways. Following
the alphabetical order of these reports in the first IRM issue after the 2005 World Mission
Conference we can glean the following remarks:
Allan Anderson stated that “one of highlights of the conference…was the quite
astonishing and well-attended dialogue between Pentecostals and Orthodox
representatives in the final synaxeis session”,21 and concluded that “the rapprochement
(of the Pentecostals) with Orthodox theologians achieved in this dialogue was indeed
noteworthy”.22 J. Kwabena Asamoab-Gyadu was surprised by the fact that “the number
of people who signed up to attend synaxeis sessions dealing with Pentecostal issues was
more than most”.23 Dieter Becker discribed the encounter between the Pentecostals and
the Orthodox as the first important issue, 24 and later in his report stated the following: “A
notable feature of Athens conference was that it did not only look at Pentecostal
experiences of healing in general but also tried to engage in discussion of the
understanding of sin and health, demons and evil powers as the source of illness, and of
mission as struggle against powers”.25
Anges Charles in her “Reflector’s Report” “chould highlight one or two more
interesting and challenging aspects”,26 including the Orthodox pneumatology, Michael
Kinnamon wrote about “unusual encounters”, referring to a synaxis with Orthodox and
Pentecostals,27 whereas Valdir Raul Steuernagel noted that the conference “set to signal
the strong willingness of the WCC to keep the Orthodox within the fellowship…and tried
to integrate Evangelicals and Pentecostals”.28
Finally, from an exclusively Orthodox perspective, Fr. Vasile Mihoc expressed his
concern about the divergence between Orthodoxy (“being more or less ‘holistic’”) and
20
From Jacques Matthey’s “Editorial” of the IRM 94 (2005), 319-321, p. 320.
21
Allan Anderson, “The Holy Spirit, Healing and Reconciliation: Pentecostal/Charismatic issues at Athens
2005,” IRM 94 (2005), p337
22
Ibid.
23
J. Kwabena Asamoab-Gyadu, “Listening with African Ears. Reflections on the 2005 World Mission
Conference in Athens,” IRM 94 (2005), p. 343.
24
Dieter Becker ,”Listener’s Report “ IRM 94 (2005), p. 355.
25
Ibid., p. 362.
26
Anges Charles, “Reflector’s Report,” IRM 94 (2005), p. 367.
27
Michael Kinnamon, “Report on the World Mission Conference Athens 2005,” IRM 94 (2005), p. 388
28
Valdir Raul Steuernagel, “Reflections on the Athens Conference,” IRM 94 (2005), p. 428f.
Pentecostalism, whereas Anastasia Vassiliadou, representing also the youth, stated her
feeling as follows: “Another very important highlight of the conference was the
encounter between Orthodox and Pentecostals. Although this issue was discussed at only
one synaxis – and very late in the conference, and for this reason it was not visible
enough to all – the preliminary theological debate between two quite distanced traditions
left very important promises for the future. Obviously the combination of Christology
and pneumatology in the official theme and the theological outlook and orientation of the
entire conference has greatly facilitated this very encouraging development”.29
All these comments, coupled with the final assessment of the organizing body
(CWME),30 which almost unanimously found the synaxis that initiated the Orthodox-
Pentecostal dialogue as the real highlight of the 2005 Athens Mission Conference, need
to be taken further by the respected Christian traditions. And if the “institutional” bodies
– if one can use such a term for the charismatic Pentecostals – are not ready to embark to
this journey, the theologians from both traditions need to take the theological discussion
further.31 One should never forget what the late Fr. George Florovsky, almost 60 years
ago at the inaugural Assembly of WCC in Amsterdam, boldly stated: “It is not enough to
be moved towards ecumenical reconciliation by some sort of strategy, be it missionary,
evangelistic, social or other, unless the Christian conscience has already become aware of
the greater challenge, by the Divine challenge itself. We must seek unity or reunion not
because it might make us more efficient or better equipped...but because unity is the
Divine imperative, the Divine purpose and design, because it belongs to the very essence
of Christianity”.32

29
Anastasia Vassiliadou, “Discerning the Spirit of Athens,” IRM 94 (2005), p. 439.
30
The Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) met for the last time after the Athens
Conference to assess among other things the Conference itself (Athens, May 16-18, 2005).
31
The (unofficial) Wesleyan-Orthodox theological dialogue, which has so far organized four meetings (cf.
the preceedings of the first in S.T.Kimbrough, Jr [ed.], Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality, SVS Press,
New York 2002), and earlier the (unofficial again) Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theological dialogue,
have set a successful example.
32
W.A.Vissert Hooft (ed.), La Premiere Assemblee du Conseil Oecumenique des Eglises. Rapport
officiel, Neuchatel - Paris, 1948. Also in G. Florovsky, "The Doctrine of the Church and the Ecumenical
Movement", The Ecumenical Review, 2 (1950), 152-161.