This post was originally published on this site
At a moment when the American religious landscape is shifting quietly yet substantially, the Orthodox Church — for decades a small and relatively unknown branch of Christianity in the United States — has unexpectedly moved to center stage. A recent New York Times report notes a striking rise in parish participation from North Carolina to Pennsylvania, with hundreds of new catechumens seeking a more authentic and demanding form of faith in an era of cultural fluidity.
Against this backdrop of realignment, Archbishop Elpidophoros of America is navigating a complex landscape where the spiritual needs of a growing body of faithful intersect with the geopolitical pressures shaping Orthodoxy in the United States and beyond. Confronted with diverse and often competing currents within the Archdiocese, Archbishop Elpidophoros offers his own assessment, commenting to R on his previously strained relations with members of the Mitsotakis government and denouncing what he describes as targeted attacks by “central and adjacent circles” in both Greece and the United States.
His seven-year tenure has been marked by efforts at progressive reorganization, internal tensions, disputes, and the inevitable adjustments and compromises required along the way. Today, the Archbishop of America is taking part in Pope Leo’s first apostolic visit to Constantinople as part of the celebrations marking 1,700 years since the First Council of Nicaea — a moment that also underscores how highly charged the religious landscape has become amid ongoing international conflicts.
In a geopolitically fluid environment, where religion often functions as a source of both power and friction, the Archdiocese of America finds itself playing a role far larger than the one traditionally ascribed to it. Internal developments at the Phanar, the persecution of Christian populations in the Middle East, and the renewed interest in Orthodoxy across the United States together form a landscape in which neither side — Church nor diplomacy — can afford to disregard the other.
(This piece is translated from the original Greek. A link to the original interview is provided at the end of the text).
How do you perceive the Council in Nicaea? As a theological opportunity, a gesture of reconciliation, or simply another symbolic step without follow-through?
I wouldn’t describe it as a step without follow-through. On the contrary, I see it as another link in a continuous effort toward rapprochement between the Churches. This effort is more necessary today than ever, at a time when Christianity in many regions is either shrinking or being actively persecuted. I am not so naïve as to believe that something spectacular will occur now in Nicaea — such as the union of the Churches. But it is significant that there is a steady willingness to collaborate on all sides.
It is also telling that, despite changes in the papacy, the tradition dating back to Pope Paul VI continues: the Pontiff visits the Ecumenical Patriarch and promotes pan-Christian cooperation.
How mature is the relationship today between Orthodox and Catholics?
We live in an age in which differences — cultural, linguistic, national — are no longer seen as obstacles to cooperation and peaceful coexistence. This is even more true when we speak of people who share the same faith: Christianity.
Within the Roman Catholic Church you will find an enormous variety of languages and liturgical traditions, without this diversity fracturing unity under the Pope. In the Orthodox Church we do not have a Pontiff, but we do share a common faith and sacramental communion, which is not disrupted by linguistic or liturgical differences.
The paradox, of course, is that we speak of celebrating Easter together with the West, while we Orthodox have not yet managed to agree on a common date even for Christmas. We, who share the same chalice and a sacramental unity, are still unable to celebrate Christmas unanimously. This shows just how complex the question of unity is.
Will the issue of a common celebration of Easter be raised at the Council, and will a decision be taken?
The issue was raised long ago; this is not the first time it comes forward. There was a process moving toward a decision, but as far as I know, it was halted following the passing of Pope Francis and the election of the new Pontiff.
I consider it rather premature for a newly elected Pope to advance such a weighty decision. It will most likely be postponed to a later stage. In any case, the very discussion is significant, even if the final decision is delayed.
His visit to Constantinople (Istanbul)—and the visit being planned to the Middle East, especially Lebanon—shows that the Vatican’s priorities remain the rapprochement of Christians, the pursuit of peace, and the protection of the Christian communities of the Middle East, who are being tested along with all the peoples of the region. This is evident, and it is something to which we all must contribute.
The Council will coincide with geopolitical tensions and rising nationalism, with Christian communities in the Middle East among the victims. How can the Church speak of unity when societies choose division and religious fanaticism?
Perhaps the Council is precisely the answer to this challenge. We are witnessing worldwide a broader trend of retreat from cooperation — a tendency of nations to turn inward, to elevate solely their own “pure” national values while demeaning or persecuting what is different.
Yet societies today are profoundly interwoven: in no country are there absent large populations of immigrants of different nationalities, religions, and languages. An attempt to return to closed, “homogeneous” societies would come at a great cost, would generate violence — perhaps even bloodshed — and would lead to significant international destabilization.
How do you assess the transitional Syrian president’s visit to the White House?
I speak as someone whose mother’s family comes from Syria and who knows the country from within. I was among the first to welcome the collapse of the Assad regime, even though we all know that this regime was protective toward Christians and Orthodoxy.
The reason is that it was a tyrannical and oppressive regime, especially toward other ethnic and religious groups. I do not believe it benefits Orthodoxy and Christianity to associate themselves with illiberal, undemocratic regimes, even if those regimes offer a temporary “protection.” In the long term, the Church has far more to gain by keeping its distance from such powers.
As for the transitional president, I think the logic of realpolitik predominates. In a country like Syria — where antagonisms have reached their peak, much blood has been shed, and there is no tradition of democratic governance — the transition cannot happen overnight. What interests me at this stage is the new president’s commitment to moving toward democracy, to gradually organizing elections with the cooperation and support of the West.
A major gain, in my view, is that Syria has been freed from Russian tutelage. Russia presented itself as the “protector of Orthodoxy,” but in reality it used Orthodox ideology—just as it once used communist ideology—as a façade for national and global ambitions. Our faith becomes an instrument of state interests. This is dangerous both for the Church and for peoples.
What did the Ecumenical Patriarch’s visit to the United States yield regarding the issue of the Halki Theological School?
On the matter of Halki, I fully share the Patriarch’s optimism — not out of romanticism, but on the basis of specific facts. First, the buildings: the renovation of the Theological School’s facilities is advancing rapidly. More than 60 percent has already been completed, and full completion is expected around Easter, thanks to the donation of Thanasis Martinos.
Second, for the first time there is substantive cooperation between officials of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and officials from Turkish government ministries. They are sitting at the same table and discussing how, under what legal structure, and in what form the School can reopen in a way acceptable both to the Patriarchate and to the Turkish legal framework. We have moved beyond the stage of pleasant declarations and entered the stage of “let’s see how we implement this.”
A decisive factor has also been the Patriarch’s intervention with the president of the United States, who within days raised the issue directly with the Turkish president. All of this justifies the Patriarch’s optimism for a reopening in September 2026.
So you believe this can happen during Erdoğan’s tenure?
Yes. Erdoğan is, realistically, the only president with the political authority to decide it and the stature to impose it on Turkish society. The objections come mainly from extreme nationalist circles — which does not surprise us.
How do you assess the current state of Greek–Turkish relations? There is a freeze in dialogue, provocations and claims from Ankara, and a continuous arms race.
I see that we are going through a relatively good period in Greek–Turkish relations. We do not face the tensions of earlier times, when we feared the worst. Today we are not experiencing escalation in the Aegean, nor the Cold War–like military climate that once prevailed.
Naturally, both sides maintain their established positions. But this is not the moment when either side will make concessions on long-standing issues, nor is there any reason to do so now. I believe both sides are waiting for the appropriate moment to continue the dialogue from the positions they have traditionally held.
Nations do not operate on the basis of sentiment, but on the basis of their interests. At this moment, the interest of both is to avoid tensions. That is good for the peoples and aligns with what the Church always prays for: peace.
You are now in the seventh year of your tenure. What do you consider your greatest achievement in the Archdiocese of America?
The most important achievement, in my view, is the restoration of the faithful’s trust in the Holy Archdiocese and its initiatives. When I arrived, that trust was severely shaken — not only regarding finances, but also regarding the Archdiocese’s ability to handle the challenges of the Greek-American community.
Naturally, this includes financial order and the completion of Saint Nicholas at Ground Zero. But I want to emphasize that none of this is the personal accomplishment of some “great leader.” If I achieved anything, it is that I brought together the healthy forces of the Greek-American community, as well as many capable individuals who love the Church and Hellenism, and persuaded them to work with us.
Looking back, were there decisions you regret or would have handled differently?
Certainly. There were occasions when I did not accurately anticipate the reactions that certain actions of mine would provoke. Had I foreseen them, I would have proceeded differently — not in terms of substance, but in terms of manner and context.
Can you give an example?
A characteristic example is the baptism of the children of a same-sex couple in Greece. I would perform the baptism again. I do not regret baptizing two children. But perhaps I would not have done it in Greece, and certainly not in the way it happened at the time.
I had not anticipated the scale or the tone of the publicity that certain ecclesiastical circles would generate, nor their connections with political circles. I could not have imagined that such a campaign would emerge. Nonetheless, I do not accept distinctions between “gay baptisms” and “straight baptisms.” That is a distortion of the Gospel’s teaching. The Church baptizes children; it does not categorize sacraments.
Your visit to the “Turkish House” in New York also caused displeasure and strong criticism. Was it deliberate and unfair?
I think that everyone who visited the same building after me essentially vindicated my decision. This often happens: the first person to do something “takes the blows” and opens the way for others to follow without backlash.
I believe that this visit was used by certain circles not for its substance, but as a pretext to damage the image of the Archbishop and the Archdiocese of America. If there had been a real issue with the substance, others would not have followed the same path afterward.
That visit was the catalyst for strain in your relations with members of the Greek government—with the Maximos Mansion—and it was followed by your quiet exclusion, whereas the opposition did not follow that path.
The hostility was one-sided. I did not respond in kind. I did not counterattack, nor did I exploit opportunities to undermine government officials.
I tried to remain calm and composed, responding only when accusations had no basis — and I still believe they had no basis. For us, the clergy of the diaspora, our stance must be clear: regardless of which government is in power in Greece, we serve the nation, the Church, and our national interests. Greece may wound us, but blood is thicker than water.
I do not believe it serves national interests to “saw off the branches” on which we ourselves sit. And one of the strongest branches of Hellenism is the Holy Archdiocese of America, regardless of who governs in Athens at any given time.
How were relations with Athens eventually normalized?
There were level-headed voices within the government and in the political sphere more broadly — people with a sense of national responsibility — who worked patiently during a time of significant tension.
At the same time, there was a “network” of official and unofficial power centers, supported by specific media outlets that operate here but address primarily a Greek audience. In America they have no credibility — almost no one listens to them. In Greece, however, they create the impression that “Hellenism is divided” and cultivate anxiety. With time and sober interventions, matters moved toward a more normal course.
Reporting suggests that Athens backed down in the dispute when it was asked to seek your help for a visit by Mr. Mitsotakis to the White House. Is this true?
It is not appropriate to go into such details. Even if it was requested, it is not something negative. I would simply have done my duty. It’s not a favor for anyone — this is my institutional role: to serve Greece and our national interests. If I do it, I am simply fulfilling my duty; if I do not, then I fail to do so.
Over the years you have been accused by priests and Greek-American circles of centralization and a lack of internal dialogue within the Archdiocese. What is your response?
This criticism surprises me, because in reality I try to do the opposite. The fact that, upon assuming my duties, I replaced certain collaborators does not signify authoritarianism; it signifies a change of course and a renewal of personnel.
The structure and functioning of the Archdiocese require that decisions be taken collectively. At the ecclesiastical level, I am the one who convened the Eparchial Synod more often than ever before—especially during the pandemic, almost every month via electronic means, so that we could coordinate matters of vaccination, public-health measures, liturgical life, and so forth.
At the administrative and financial level, all decisions are made by the established collective bodies: the Executive Committee, the Archdiocesan Council, and the Clergy-Laity congresses. None of these procedures was bypassed. That is why the term “authoritarianism” seems more the product of propaganda than a reflection of reality.
The network of official and unofficial power centers you refer to—many here in the United States argue that they continue to operate, to intervene, and to influence the fate of the Archdiocese.
I take some comfort in the fact that these very same circles—with the very same names, in fact—engaged in similar propaganda against all my predecessors. If you look at the archives, you will see that the same individuals who today praise Iakovos or Demetrios once wrote the harshest things about them.
This shows that we are not dealing with substantive criticism, but with harmful propaganda, fake news, and fabricated stories. Good-faith, well-documented criticism is entirely welcome—it helps me safeguard myself from mistakes and from drifting into authoritarian tendencies. Unfortunately, what we often see is not that kind of dialogue, but “smoke screens.”
You are also accused of using English more than Greek in the Orthodox churches of America. Isn’t that criticism unfair?
When an Archbishop wishes to communicate with his flock, he must speak their language. My audience is not Kaisariani or the Athens-based websites that will critique me, but Missouri, Louisiana, and Las Vegas.
If I travel to an inland parish where people do not understand Greek and speak to them in Greek merely to satisfy certain people in Greece, that would be hypocrisy. The Greek language is not promoted by my speaking Greek to people who do not understand it, but by our systematic support of Greek education.
The real answer lies in the work we do through the Department of Greek Education: in supporting our day schools, afternoon schools, and Saturday schools; in the programs for healthcare coverage and pension benefits for teachers—programs that, for the first time in the Archdiocese’s hundred-year history, have been institutionalized. That is the proper measure of whether I promote the Greek language—not whether I deliver a speech in Greek to an audience that cannot understand me.
What is your vision for the Greek Orthodox Church in America? Many initially believed you would bring a wave of renewal, with your stance on the Black Lives Matter movement, your handling of the pandemic, and other initiatives.
The Archdiocese of America is evolving and growing rapidly. This is not only our own experience “on the ground,” in the parishes, but also something confirmed by major media outlets, such as the New York Times recently.
The pews are full. This past summer—for the first time in our history in America—instead of emptying out during vacations, churches were more crowded than ever. There is strong engagement with Orthodoxy. Communities are developing not only in terms of buildings and finances, but also in activities: liturgical, charitable, athletic, and cultural.
One must travel to the interior, to remote parishes, to witness the enthusiasm for our Church, our faith, and our culture. Even in places where the Greek language has largely faded, “Greekness” remains strong.
And it is a Greekness without nationalism: when you see African-American and Asian-American students in Texas schools wearing fustanella and dancing the tsamiko, you realize that our culture inspires without exclusion or borders. This is the vision: an Orthodoxy that is open, vibrant, inspiring, and embraces everyone.
Διαβάστε τη συνέντευξη στα Ελληνικά.
The post Abp. Elpidophoros speaks to Real.gr on an ‘evolving’ Archdiocese appeared first on Orthodox Observer.
