What do you think?
Rate this book
Contemporary Greek Theologians #4
Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church
The voice of John Zizioulas may turn out to be the fresh voice for which theology and especially ecclesiology have long been waiting. In the context of a complete theology, which includes extended consideration of the major theological topics the Trinity, Christology, eschatology, ministry, and sacrament, but above all, the Eucharist the author propounds a fresh understanding, based on the early Fathers and the Orthodox tradition, of the concept of person, and so of the Church itself. His consideration of the local church as 'catholic' in the literal sense, and the need to understand the universal Church not as a superstructure but as the communion of all Churches, provides the program for the ecclesiology of the future. Yves Congar has written that he considers the author to be 'one of the most original and profound theologians of our epoch' and that he 'presents a penetrating and coherent reading of the tradition of the Greek '
269 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
46 people are currently reading
808 people want to read
About the author
John D. Zizioulas
17 books47 followersHis Eminence, the Most Reverend John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon (b. 1931) is a modern theologian and titular Metropolitan of Pergamon, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The future metropolitan was born January 10, 1931. He began his studies at the University of Thessaloniki but took his first theology degree from the University of Athens in 1955. He studied patristics under Father Georges Florovsky at Harvard Divinity School, receiving his M.T.S. in 1956, and his doctorate in theology from the University of Athens in 1965. He was professor of theology for 14 years at the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Geneva, Gregorian University, and King's College, London. He was consecrated as a bishop on June 22, 1986 and named Metropolitan of Pergamon.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
February 2, 2008
this is one of my all-time favorites so figured i should put it up here. zizioulas is a prominent eastern orthodox theologian who proposes a trinitarian understanding of identity in which to truly "be" means to "be-in-relation" to others. he challenges the roots of individualistic framings of personhood which start with the individual as an enclosed self and thereafter move second-hand to social relations; and proposes in its place an understanding of personhood as inherently and primarily relational: we exist as persons in and through our relations to God / others / creation.
this trinitarian framework grounded in the life of the Father, Son and Spirit as an eternal communion of self-giving love affirms distinction and union: in our relations we are distinct, but only in-and-towards the other, not as self-enclosed monads. we are united, but not as liquid absorbed into the ocean of the amorphous universal, but rather as distinct-yet-inseparable beings in integrated relationship with the world which constitutes our identity as distinct persons.
this ontological framework has tremendous implications for the nature of the church as well. while i had a harder time relating to the second-half of the book which deals more with orthodox ecclesiology, the point was well-taken that what Christ forms around himself is a communion of persons drawn into the very trinitarian life of God in union with Christ and enveloped in the Spirit as eschatological anticipation of the approaching reunion of God with his creation when God shall "be all in all".
i think this book is important to those of us in the Western church like myself who have defined our spirituality very individualistically as a "me and God" thing and Jesus as "my" "personal" lord & saviour; i'm inspired to move towards a Christian spirituality which is more dependent upon the broader diverse community that I need for my spiritual formation, and the broader need for me to be reconciled not only to God but to the humanity, city, and creation of which I am inextricably a part. The redemption of my personhood will entail the healing of my relationships to all these varied spheres of life.
this trinitarian framework grounded in the life of the Father, Son and Spirit as an eternal communion of self-giving love affirms distinction and union: in our relations we are distinct, but only in-and-towards the other, not as self-enclosed monads. we are united, but not as liquid absorbed into the ocean of the amorphous universal, but rather as distinct-yet-inseparable beings in integrated relationship with the world which constitutes our identity as distinct persons.
this ontological framework has tremendous implications for the nature of the church as well. while i had a harder time relating to the second-half of the book which deals more with orthodox ecclesiology, the point was well-taken that what Christ forms around himself is a communion of persons drawn into the very trinitarian life of God in union with Christ and enveloped in the Spirit as eschatological anticipation of the approaching reunion of God with his creation when God shall "be all in all".
i think this book is important to those of us in the Western church like myself who have defined our spirituality very individualistically as a "me and God" thing and Jesus as "my" "personal" lord & saviour; i'm inspired to move towards a Christian spirituality which is more dependent upon the broader diverse community that I need for my spiritual formation, and the broader need for me to be reconciled not only to God but to the humanity, city, and creation of which I am inextricably a part. The redemption of my personhood will entail the healing of my relationships to all these varied spheres of life.
May 29, 2018
I read this book because my much smarter and better looking friend Jeremy did a thesis on John Zizioulas. Zizioulas is one of the leading Eastern Orthodox theologians today. But this was a difficult book. Zizioulas is much easier to read if you have a good working knowledge of the Christian tradition in the Patristic period (particularly in the East), knowledge of doctrinal development and a workign knowledge of philosophy. I possess these in a small measure so I was able to work my way through this book, though it was not a quick read.
However it was delightful. I found this book tremendously helpful in thinking through my thoughts about what the Church is. He actually has a lot to say about the development of ontology from the ancient Greeks, until the Cappadocian Fathers and how the latter came to understand their ontology in light of the personhood of the Father in the Godhead. By this he, he argues relatationship is at the very core of all being (Father relating with the Son and Spirit). The Church, is a body instituted by Christ and constituted by the Spirit which participates in Communion with the Father. Thus those who have been baptized into the Church are constituted not only biologically but also ecclesially.
If the previous paragraph was incomprehensible, know that I was attempting to dumb down Metropolitan John a lot. There is much more in the book than I have described (i.e. The role of the bishop, Apostolic succession, the Eucharist, etc.). Suffice to say, this was a challenging book, which I found fruitful and will likely return to.
However it was delightful. I found this book tremendously helpful in thinking through my thoughts about what the Church is. He actually has a lot to say about the development of ontology from the ancient Greeks, until the Cappadocian Fathers and how the latter came to understand their ontology in light of the personhood of the Father in the Godhead. By this he, he argues relatationship is at the very core of all being (Father relating with the Son and Spirit). The Church, is a body instituted by Christ and constituted by the Spirit which participates in Communion with the Father. Thus those who have been baptized into the Church are constituted not only biologically but also ecclesially.
If the previous paragraph was incomprehensible, know that I was attempting to dumb down Metropolitan John a lot. There is much more in the book than I have described (i.e. The role of the bishop, Apostolic succession, the Eucharist, etc.). Suffice to say, this was a challenging book, which I found fruitful and will likely return to.
March 24, 2017
Really enjoyed this work. There were some parts that I would disagree with, especially being a Baptist and Zizioulas being an Orthodox Christian. Despite those areas of disagreement, the work is a good work that encourages the church to be one and yet many. The ending of the book I found the most helpful as he lays out how the church universal and local should interact.
January 6, 2021
read it in too small of chunks and sporadically to hold it all as a single thought, but such lovely insight on personhood within Christ and His Bride, particularly by arguing modern paradigms of the individual vs. historical and eschatological paradigms of person
April 9, 2019
"The identification of God's ultimate being with a person rather than an ousia not only makes possible a biblical doctrine of God (= the Father in the Bible), but also resolves problems such as those inherent in the homoousion concerning, for example, the relation of the Son to the Father." (88-89)
"The idea of ekstasis signifies that God is love, and as such He creates an immanent relationship of love outside Himself. The emphasis placed on the words "outside Himself" is particularly important, since it signifies that love as ekstasis gives rise not to an emanation in the neoplatonic sense, but to an otherness of being which is seen as responding and returning to its original cause. In Maximus this idea receives a more complete and definite treatment, because his approach is not ultimately related to cosmology, as in Dionysius, but to the trinitarian being of God. Likewise, the distinctiom between the essence and energy in God serves to indicate the relationship between God and the world as ontological otherness bridged by love, but not by 'nature' or by 'essence.'[75]" (p. 91)
"[75]The roots of this distinction are to be found in Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 38:7). Its development leads to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas. Cf. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1957). The intention behind this distinction was to safeguard the otherness between Creator and creation: see P. Sherwood, op. cit. p. 32 and J. Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, [1982] pp. 191 ff." (p. 91)
"Maximus puts his finger on the crucial point here and objects forcefully: ... His knowledge is nothing other than His love. If He ceases to love what exists, nothing will be. Being depends on love." (p. 97)
One wonders what implications this has for Romans 8:29 ("For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son").
"If communion is conceived as something additional to being, then we no longer have the same picture. The crucial point lies in the fact that being is constituted as communion; only then can truth and communion be mutually identified." (p. 101)
"The significance of the person rests in the fact that he represents two things simultaneously which are at first sight in contradiction: particularity and communion. Being a person is fundamentally different from being an individual or a 'personality,' for a person cannot be imagined in himself but only in his relationships." (p 105)
"Firstly, we may understand Christ as an individual, seen objectively and historically, presenting Himself thereby for us as the truth. With this way of understanding Christ, the distance between Him and us is bridged by the aid of certain means, which serve as vehicles for truth to communicate itself to us: for example, His spoken words incorporated within the Scriptures and perhaps tradition-transmitted, interpreted, or even expounded through magisterium-all being realized with the assistance or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, it is possible to envisage a type of Christology in which Christ, although a particular person, cannot be conceived in Himself as an individual. When we make the assertion that He is the truth, we are meaning His whole personal existence, in this second type of Christology; that is, we mean His relationship with His body, the Church, ourselves. In other words, when we now say "Christ" we mean a person and not an individual; we mean a relational reality existing "for me" or "for us."110 Here the Holy Spirit is not one who aids us in bridging the distance between Christ and ourselves, but he is the person of the Trinity who actually realizes in History that which we call Christ, this absolutely relational entity, our Savior." (p. 110-111)
"If communion was no longer possible after a council's definition and anathema, it was because the eucharist requires a common vision ([Greek]) of Christ." (p. 117)
"The Spirit is not something that 'animates' a Church which already somehow exists. The Spirit makes the Church be. Pneumatology does not refer to the well-being but to the very being of the Church." (p. 132)
"Only when the preached word becomes identical with the eucharistic flesh does the synthesis of the historical with the eschatological continuity if the kergyma take place. Then the Johannine mentality of the 'word made flesh' unites with the Irenaean view that orthodox doctrine and eucharist form an indivisible unity." (p. 191)
"Why did the Church choose the bishop as the instrument of apostolic succession? ... It is only when apostolic continuity is understood as a continuity of structure and as a succession of communities that the episcopal character of apostolic succession acquires its uniqueness." (p. 198)
"It is not, therefore, an accident that the eucharist provided the early Church from the beginning with (a) the basic concept and framework of her structure, and (b) the context for the perpetuation of this structure in history." (p. 206)
"These questions imply an understanding of ordination as a transmission or bestowal of a certain charisma or grace. In the former case, grace is again objectified and understood as something that can be possessed by an individual and transmitted." (p. 214)
" Apostolic succession has again become a problem in theology, because of an approach to the ministry in terms of causality and objectified ontology. The bishop, having acquired the status of an office, regardless of his position in the community, became in the theology of apostolic succession, an individual who is linked with the apostles through a chain of individual ordinations. And who is thus transmitting to the other ministers below him grace and authority out of what he has received and possesses. This view was found by the Reformation tradition to involve a formalization and institutionalization of the ministry, which was incompatible with the freedom of the Spirit. Thus either the "baby was thrown away with the bath-water" and the issue became one of "having" or "not having" apostolic succession, or else it was given meaning by making apostolic succession a matter of faithfulness to the truth." (p. 238)
"...if in other words the Church is a true true Church only if it is a local event incarnating Christ and manifesting the Kingdom in a particular place - we must be prepared to question the ecclesial status of confessional churches as such, and begin to work on the basis of the nature of the local Church." (p. 260)
"The idea of ekstasis signifies that God is love, and as such He creates an immanent relationship of love outside Himself. The emphasis placed on the words "outside Himself" is particularly important, since it signifies that love as ekstasis gives rise not to an emanation in the neoplatonic sense, but to an otherness of being which is seen as responding and returning to its original cause. In Maximus this idea receives a more complete and definite treatment, because his approach is not ultimately related to cosmology, as in Dionysius, but to the trinitarian being of God. Likewise, the distinctiom between the essence and energy in God serves to indicate the relationship between God and the world as ontological otherness bridged by love, but not by 'nature' or by 'essence.'[75]" (p. 91)
"[75]The roots of this distinction are to be found in Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. 38:7). Its development leads to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas. Cf. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1957). The intention behind this distinction was to safeguard the otherness between Creator and creation: see P. Sherwood, op. cit. p. 32 and J. Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, [1982] pp. 191 ff." (p. 91)
"Maximus puts his finger on the crucial point here and objects forcefully: ... His knowledge is nothing other than His love. If He ceases to love what exists, nothing will be. Being depends on love." (p. 97)
One wonders what implications this has for Romans 8:29 ("For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son").
"If communion is conceived as something additional to being, then we no longer have the same picture. The crucial point lies in the fact that being is constituted as communion; only then can truth and communion be mutually identified." (p. 101)
"The significance of the person rests in the fact that he represents two things simultaneously which are at first sight in contradiction: particularity and communion. Being a person is fundamentally different from being an individual or a 'personality,' for a person cannot be imagined in himself but only in his relationships." (p 105)
"Firstly, we may understand Christ as an individual, seen objectively and historically, presenting Himself thereby for us as the truth. With this way of understanding Christ, the distance between Him and us is bridged by the aid of certain means, which serve as vehicles for truth to communicate itself to us: for example, His spoken words incorporated within the Scriptures and perhaps tradition-transmitted, interpreted, or even expounded through magisterium-all being realized with the assistance or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, it is possible to envisage a type of Christology in which Christ, although a particular person, cannot be conceived in Himself as an individual. When we make the assertion that He is the truth, we are meaning His whole personal existence, in this second type of Christology; that is, we mean His relationship with His body, the Church, ourselves. In other words, when we now say "Christ" we mean a person and not an individual; we mean a relational reality existing "for me" or "for us."110 Here the Holy Spirit is not one who aids us in bridging the distance between Christ and ourselves, but he is the person of the Trinity who actually realizes in History that which we call Christ, this absolutely relational entity, our Savior." (p. 110-111)
"If communion was no longer possible after a council's definition and anathema, it was because the eucharist requires a common vision ([Greek]) of Christ." (p. 117)
"The Spirit is not something that 'animates' a Church which already somehow exists. The Spirit makes the Church be. Pneumatology does not refer to the well-being but to the very being of the Church." (p. 132)
"Only when the preached word becomes identical with the eucharistic flesh does the synthesis of the historical with the eschatological continuity if the kergyma take place. Then the Johannine mentality of the 'word made flesh' unites with the Irenaean view that orthodox doctrine and eucharist form an indivisible unity." (p. 191)
"Why did the Church choose the bishop as the instrument of apostolic succession? ... It is only when apostolic continuity is understood as a continuity of structure and as a succession of communities that the episcopal character of apostolic succession acquires its uniqueness." (p. 198)
"It is not, therefore, an accident that the eucharist provided the early Church from the beginning with (a) the basic concept and framework of her structure, and (b) the context for the perpetuation of this structure in history." (p. 206)
"These questions imply an understanding of ordination as a transmission or bestowal of a certain charisma or grace. In the former case, grace is again objectified and understood as something that can be possessed by an individual and transmitted." (p. 214)
" Apostolic succession has again become a problem in theology, because of an approach to the ministry in terms of causality and objectified ontology. The bishop, having acquired the status of an office, regardless of his position in the community, became in the theology of apostolic succession, an individual who is linked with the apostles through a chain of individual ordinations. And who is thus transmitting to the other ministers below him grace and authority out of what he has received and possesses. This view was found by the Reformation tradition to involve a formalization and institutionalization of the ministry, which was incompatible with the freedom of the Spirit. Thus either the "baby was thrown away with the bath-water" and the issue became one of "having" or "not having" apostolic succession, or else it was given meaning by making apostolic succession a matter of faithfulness to the truth." (p. 238)
"...if in other words the Church is a true true Church only if it is a local event incarnating Christ and manifesting the Kingdom in a particular place - we must be prepared to question the ecclesial status of confessional churches as such, and begin to work on the basis of the nature of the local Church." (p. 260)
October 18, 2025
Just WOW! Mind-blowing. This is a work of the Gandalf of Theology, a true Jedi master (to mix fantasy universes).
To begin with the mind-blowing, this book was assembled from various articles and chapters published in Greek, English, German, French, and Italian. Yes, 5 languages as indicated by the sources at the end of the work. That alone is a wonder. Who writes academic papers in 5 languages? These were written in the 70s and 80s - pre-computer age, no spell check, never mind pre-AI.
Given that the chapters were written in various times, places, and languages, the work has a remarkable unity and coherence.
The first chapter sets the framework for the entire work. It is a freestanding work of genius. While reading this chapter, many times the mushroom cloud emoji appeared above my head - mind blown. And given the abstract, philosophical, and deep nature of the content, it is remarkably clear. Stunningly clear. I’m not sure if being able to write in 5 languages gives you the superpower of incredible clarity in writing, but that’s what we have here. Also, the footnotes alone are a treasure chest. So many clear explanations and expositions of the conceptual foundations of the ideas in the text.
Chapter 1 engages with the concept of person. What is a person? He lands on person as an ontological entity, that is, person is not something later added to a thing, it is in the nature of the thing itself. Person is not a mask or a role to take on. Personhood is essential to the being of the thing. Being only has existence relationally. Persons don’t exist and then later become persons as an extra trait.
This is related to the personhood of God. The personhood of God is his Trinitarian nature. God exists as persons, not as a metaphysical God who then adds persons onto his being. God exists dynamically in three persons. Three persons is his being. The relational nature of being of person is the grounding of being (person) in love. The Persons of the Trinity exist, have their being, in love. Love is the ground of being of the Trinity. The Father, the source, loves the Son who loves the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the love of the Father and returns the love to the Father and the Son. This dynamic of love defines the being of God. In freedom, God created with the intention of love. Creation is grounded in love.
This dynamic of love defines the being of persons. Biologically, human beings are the result of an act of love. An act of love produces a new person. In this limited biological picture of the attempt to overcome death through love. The ultimate failure is that the person still dies even though they propagate themselves to a next generation through love.
The incarnation of the Son is the breaking in of a new form of being, a new life. God entered into intimate relation to his creation by taking on a human body and uniting himself with the human. Through participation in human suffering and death and the eventual victory over death itself in the resurrection, a new source of life is on offer. A new life of relationship, of enduring love, and enduring of the person. An eternal person becomes a possibility.
We enter this new life through baptism. We receive this new birth not through nature but through the Spirit. We enter into a new relation, a new relation to God, creation, and each other. We participate in the divine nurture through Christ. Our new being is free to act in the way of the new life with love as the true ground of our being. What we are in essence, at the core, is constituted only relationally in love.
That is a terrible summary of the sheer beauty of the writing and unfolding of the ideas in chapter 1. The remaining chapters build on this in the new being, what is the nature of the community? What is the nature of the church and its ministry in this ontological frame?
The work takes an ecumenical approach, critical of his own Orthodox tradition where warranted and ultimately longing for the unity of the people of God who are now divided by confessional identities, which he points out are not fundamental to the identity of the church. If this is Orthodoxy, sign me up!
A remarkable work that needs to be on the annual re-read list.
Profound ideas expressed with ninja-like dexterity. Presented with generosity and authority. Shows profound learning, deep wisdom, and mature spirituality. I can’t help but think of him as Gandalf, and as he is now passed over, Gandalf the White.
Highest possible recommendation.
To begin with the mind-blowing, this book was assembled from various articles and chapters published in Greek, English, German, French, and Italian. Yes, 5 languages as indicated by the sources at the end of the work. That alone is a wonder. Who writes academic papers in 5 languages? These were written in the 70s and 80s - pre-computer age, no spell check, never mind pre-AI.
Given that the chapters were written in various times, places, and languages, the work has a remarkable unity and coherence.
The first chapter sets the framework for the entire work. It is a freestanding work of genius. While reading this chapter, many times the mushroom cloud emoji appeared above my head - mind blown. And given the abstract, philosophical, and deep nature of the content, it is remarkably clear. Stunningly clear. I’m not sure if being able to write in 5 languages gives you the superpower of incredible clarity in writing, but that’s what we have here. Also, the footnotes alone are a treasure chest. So many clear explanations and expositions of the conceptual foundations of the ideas in the text.
Chapter 1 engages with the concept of person. What is a person? He lands on person as an ontological entity, that is, person is not something later added to a thing, it is in the nature of the thing itself. Person is not a mask or a role to take on. Personhood is essential to the being of the thing. Being only has existence relationally. Persons don’t exist and then later become persons as an extra trait.
This is related to the personhood of God. The personhood of God is his Trinitarian nature. God exists as persons, not as a metaphysical God who then adds persons onto his being. God exists dynamically in three persons. Three persons is his being. The relational nature of being of person is the grounding of being (person) in love. The Persons of the Trinity exist, have their being, in love. Love is the ground of being of the Trinity. The Father, the source, loves the Son who loves the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the love of the Father and returns the love to the Father and the Son. This dynamic of love defines the being of God. In freedom, God created with the intention of love. Creation is grounded in love.
This dynamic of love defines the being of persons. Biologically, human beings are the result of an act of love. An act of love produces a new person. In this limited biological picture of the attempt to overcome death through love. The ultimate failure is that the person still dies even though they propagate themselves to a next generation through love.
The incarnation of the Son is the breaking in of a new form of being, a new life. God entered into intimate relation to his creation by taking on a human body and uniting himself with the human. Through participation in human suffering and death and the eventual victory over death itself in the resurrection, a new source of life is on offer. A new life of relationship, of enduring love, and enduring of the person. An eternal person becomes a possibility.
We enter this new life through baptism. We receive this new birth not through nature but through the Spirit. We enter into a new relation, a new relation to God, creation, and each other. We participate in the divine nurture through Christ. Our new being is free to act in the way of the new life with love as the true ground of our being. What we are in essence, at the core, is constituted only relationally in love.
That is a terrible summary of the sheer beauty of the writing and unfolding of the ideas in chapter 1. The remaining chapters build on this in the new being, what is the nature of the community? What is the nature of the church and its ministry in this ontological frame?
The work takes an ecumenical approach, critical of his own Orthodox tradition where warranted and ultimately longing for the unity of the people of God who are now divided by confessional identities, which he points out are not fundamental to the identity of the church. If this is Orthodoxy, sign me up!
A remarkable work that needs to be on the annual re-read list.
Profound ideas expressed with ninja-like dexterity. Presented with generosity and authority. Shows profound learning, deep wisdom, and mature spirituality. I can’t help but think of him as Gandalf, and as he is now passed over, Gandalf the White.
Highest possible recommendation.
May 28, 2025
It's alright. I think a little too much argument for little substance. I could see this being a lot more interesting for those who love academic theology and exploring every facet of communion, community, and being. Zizioulas' overall point is good in that is hyper focuses on communion being the meeting place of individuals, but not individuals who are separated from their community. In this way it challenges the very individualistic reading of communion that is common in popular understanding.
In general, Zizioulas makes a good argument for churches being rooted in place and the people who are there, as the Godhead is one in being with three persons, that community aspect is played out in his church.
Good if you like academic theology, but a little too stuffy in it's writing for me.
P.S. Still a fan of St. Vladamir's Press and their continual publishing of material that defies everything the orthobros want. See the following quote from this book: "There is a prevailing view among the so-called 'conservative' Orthodox theologians that the doctrines of the Church constitute something 'untouchable.' This turns dogmas into petrified relics from the past and widens the chasm between the historical and eschatological perspectives of the continuity of the apostolic kerygma. As study of the early church and an appreciate of the eucharistic basis of doctrine, however, show that it is better to understand dogmas as doxological statements of the community, as the 'faith transmitted to the saints,' constantly received and re-received by the consciousness of 'the community of the saints' in new forms of experience and with a constant openness to the future." Uh oh, I sure hope that doesn't mean human traditions like icon veneration are contingent... jk they obviously are contingent, now stop kissing wood and worship Christ (that message is only for orthobros, if you're normal EO just ignore.)
In general, Zizioulas makes a good argument for churches being rooted in place and the people who are there, as the Godhead is one in being with three persons, that community aspect is played out in his church.
Good if you like academic theology, but a little too stuffy in it's writing for me.
P.S. Still a fan of St. Vladamir's Press and their continual publishing of material that defies everything the orthobros want. See the following quote from this book: "There is a prevailing view among the so-called 'conservative' Orthodox theologians that the doctrines of the Church constitute something 'untouchable.' This turns dogmas into petrified relics from the past and widens the chasm between the historical and eschatological perspectives of the continuity of the apostolic kerygma. As study of the early church and an appreciate of the eucharistic basis of doctrine, however, show that it is better to understand dogmas as doxological statements of the community, as the 'faith transmitted to the saints,' constantly received and re-received by the consciousness of 'the community of the saints' in new forms of experience and with a constant openness to the future." Uh oh, I sure hope that doesn't mean human traditions like icon veneration are contingent... jk they obviously are contingent, now stop kissing wood and worship Christ (that message is only for orthobros, if you're normal EO just ignore.)
October 11, 2022
This book is extraordinary, as well as extremely dense. It is somewhat transcends genres, as it is part theology, philosophy and even part historical theology. As an bishop in the Greek Orthodox Church, his attempt to bring the Cappadocian Fathers and the early patristic trinitarianism to relevance through his deep dive into the ontological implications of their understanding of the personhood of God really challenges the predominant Augustinian/Western trinitarianism for all of its faults.
Yet even if I think he pins far too much of the Western Church's ills on our unbalanced trinitarianism that leans more towards the substance of God vs. the hypostatic personhood of God, I often found myself nodding in agreement. Perhaps our institutionalism, monarchical tendencies of church governance, the protestant approach of merely symbolic use of communion/Eucharist, and our neglect of pneumatology for many, many centuries in western church history really can find at least some of its origin in our unbalanced trinitarianism. I do think the future of the Church catholic is a charismatic one, and implicitly Zizioulas argues the same.
This book perhaps should have been 3-4 books, and some chapters it feels extremely crammed in topics covered. However, if you're willing to read and re-read some of the chapters to really grasp his argument and language... it's worth your time. One sentence summary: The being of God is communion, and to know God is to know a person, because God is three persons in one substance. To be therefore is to be in communion - relationally, in love.
Yet even if I think he pins far too much of the Western Church's ills on our unbalanced trinitarianism that leans more towards the substance of God vs. the hypostatic personhood of God, I often found myself nodding in agreement. Perhaps our institutionalism, monarchical tendencies of church governance, the protestant approach of merely symbolic use of communion/Eucharist, and our neglect of pneumatology for many, many centuries in western church history really can find at least some of its origin in our unbalanced trinitarianism. I do think the future of the Church catholic is a charismatic one, and implicitly Zizioulas argues the same.
This book perhaps should have been 3-4 books, and some chapters it feels extremely crammed in topics covered. However, if you're willing to read and re-read some of the chapters to really grasp his argument and language... it's worth your time. One sentence summary: The being of God is communion, and to know God is to know a person, because God is three persons in one substance. To be therefore is to be in communion - relationally, in love.
June 3, 2019
I read this in two long stretches - I started it last year, set it aside for a while, and recently finished it. It's challenging in parts, but worth the effort. The philosophical foundation of the book - that personhood is rooted in relationship, not some independent ontological status, forms the basis of an interesting understanding of the church. It allows the Eucharist to become the defining element of the church, for that is the moment where the people of God are united in the local body and across space and time. I also really like the view it gives to the ministries of the church, since they are fundamentally relational rather than formed by the passing on of some portion of grace in a way that is independent of the communities in which laity, deacons, presbyters, and bishops serve.
I'd have to go back and look at the earlier sections of the book to offer any real critical commentary, but if you have any interest at all in the contributions of Orthodox theologians this is definitely worth a read.
I'd have to go back and look at the earlier sections of the book to offer any real critical commentary, but if you have any interest at all in the contributions of Orthodox theologians this is definitely worth a read.
December 11, 2024
Zizioulas’ ontology presents some interesting and thought provoking ideas. Particularly interesting is the idea that to be is not to be an individual, person, or even being, but to be a member of a Eucharistic community. Further, the members of the Eucharistic community grow together as an entity more than a group of individuals. The body of Christ melds together in such a way that the individuals wash out and the only thing that remains is the Christ. The leads to some interesting ideas regarding the incarnation (singular event vs. prolonged incarnation in the Church).
August 3, 2020
Zizioulas does a great job showing the Christian Orthodox ecclesiology by pointing at the pneumatological basis of the Incarnation and ecclesiology. And how this makes the Church an eschatological communion and not just a historical one. The Eucharist in this perspective is central. It is great that he has the studies of Early Church history to point at.
October 9, 2022
There’s things about this book that require a different way of thinking and reading than almost books. It’s easy to misread this book I believe. But learning about Zizoulas’ concepts of person and the church are worth it.
November 11, 2024
Probably one of the best books I have ever read. 95% of it definitely went over my head, it was so rich and led to some very good discussions with my husband. In particular, I enjoyed the discussions relating to the Trinity.
November 27, 2025
A great book, thought provoking on such topics as the nature of being and the ministry and the Church as each directly relates to communion with God, the Eucharist. Helpful in further understanding Eastern Orthodoxy as well.
June 7, 2020
Tough read to finish, but helpful to dive into the Orthodox perspectives of Sacraments, Community and Trinitarianism.
June 21, 2021
الكتاب صغير
الترجمة جيدة
المحتوى مركز وصعب
محتاج قراءة عدة مرات
سأرجع لقراءته مرة أخرى
الترجمة جيدة
المحتوى مركز وصعب
محتاج قراءة عدة مرات
سأرجع لقراءته مرة أخرى
March 24, 2022
Very interesting
December 5, 2023
A truly astonishing work.
July 28, 2025
A beautiful explanation of Orthodox theology. Didn’t realize a systematic theology could be so poetic.
March 17, 2012
Zizioulas does an excellent study for us in how the Trinity shapes our understanding of the person specifically as it relates to the Church. This book is a collection of essays, the first half dealing with Trinitarian issues and the latter half dealing with the Church.
Zizzy notes that ancient Greek thought maintained a diversity in spite of apparent unity (29). Therefore, there could never be a unique “person” since everything reduced to the One. Christianity would come along and identify the hypostasis with the prosopon. In other words, the ancient teaching could now differentiate between person and nature. Person is no longer a category of being, but the hypostasis of a being. Person constitutes being (39).
Ontology and God's Existence
The person of the Father is the ontological principle of God's existence (40). The hypostasis of the Father grounds the “being” of God. This forces ontology into a “relational category” (this is quite interesting given that modern physics has also moved into relational categories; see Polkinghorne, Trinity and Entanglement).
Athanasios, contra later moves by Thomas Aquinas, made a distinction between substance and will (Contra Arianos: 1:33). He broke the closed ontology of the Greeks. To be is not the same as to will or to act. He connected the Son's being to the substance of God, which of course, is grounded in the person of the Father. Since “substance” is grounded in the person of the Father, substance now has relational signficance.
While “hypostasis” and “ousia” technically mean the same thing (or at least overlap)--anyway, before St Basil—several things have happened that prevent a neat identification. Hypostasis now has a relational dimension, and Athanasios rejected the distinction between primary and secondary substance (85 n. 61).
Truth and Communion
The Greeks were perceptive enough to know that history is in the realm of decay (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Their reticence to history was not due to “gnostic otherworldliness,” but to common sense. If Truth is timeless and eternal, how can it interact with the changing realm of history?
St Maximos the Confessor was the one to solve this riddle. He did so by allowing for “truth” in the movement of being (e.g., history). He proposed to see the world as genesis-->kinesis-->stasis. Thus, history is provisional but it is also meaningful: it now possesses an “end.” The truth of history is identifiable with creation, and both are moving towards the future.
Conclusion
This is only a thumbnail sketch. The rest of the book deals with ecclesiological issues that are probably more relevant for Orthodox seminarians.
Zizzy notes that ancient Greek thought maintained a diversity in spite of apparent unity (29). Therefore, there could never be a unique “person” since everything reduced to the One. Christianity would come along and identify the hypostasis with the prosopon. In other words, the ancient teaching could now differentiate between person and nature. Person is no longer a category of being, but the hypostasis of a being. Person constitutes being (39).
Ontology and God's Existence
The person of the Father is the ontological principle of God's existence (40). The hypostasis of the Father grounds the “being” of God. This forces ontology into a “relational category” (this is quite interesting given that modern physics has also moved into relational categories; see Polkinghorne, Trinity and Entanglement).
Athanasios, contra later moves by Thomas Aquinas, made a distinction between substance and will (Contra Arianos: 1:33). He broke the closed ontology of the Greeks. To be is not the same as to will or to act. He connected the Son's being to the substance of God, which of course, is grounded in the person of the Father. Since “substance” is grounded in the person of the Father, substance now has relational signficance.
While “hypostasis” and “ousia” technically mean the same thing (or at least overlap)--anyway, before St Basil—several things have happened that prevent a neat identification. Hypostasis now has a relational dimension, and Athanasios rejected the distinction between primary and secondary substance (85 n. 61).
Truth and Communion
The Greeks were perceptive enough to know that history is in the realm of decay (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Their reticence to history was not due to “gnostic otherworldliness,” but to common sense. If Truth is timeless and eternal, how can it interact with the changing realm of history?
St Maximos the Confessor was the one to solve this riddle. He did so by allowing for “truth” in the movement of being (e.g., history). He proposed to see the world as genesis-->kinesis-->stasis. Thus, history is provisional but it is also meaningful: it now possesses an “end.” The truth of history is identifiable with creation, and both are moving towards the future.
Conclusion
This is only a thumbnail sketch. The rest of the book deals with ecclesiological issues that are probably more relevant for Orthodox seminarians.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 28, 2013
I usually encourage people to read beyond their reading level. Persevering through a challenging book full of foreign concepts is a most rewarding and enlightening experience. It's those types of books that make us a better reader. That being said, this isn't for the faint of heart. Unless you have passing familiarity with Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, Patristic theology, trinitarian theology, and early church history I suggest you forgo this book for the time being and do some groundwork first (Justo Gonzalez and Bishop Ware are instructive here).
Even for those with a passing understanding of the aforementioned topics, this book is a challenging read. I think this is especially true for protestants like me. To be honest, I almost put the book down after the first 60 pages--a historical piece on the ontology of personhood and the category of communion in ontology. Things remained equally challenging through the second chapter addressing the question of the ontological and historical character of truth.
Things got better for me beginning in the third chapter. "Being as Communion" is a collection of essays. As a collection, the book tended to circle around the same topics over and over and over again. One became aware of the problems of the synthesis between christology and pneumetology, the eucharist and catholicity, the one and the many, apostolic succession, ministry and the eucharist, etc. One also became more aware of Zizioulas' solutions to these problems as asked from different positions and problems. It's repetition became a key to its unlocking.
In the end, this is too large of work and I am too lazy to evaluate in a medium like this. Let it be said that I have found a vast treasure house of theological reflection that will continue to shape me as I prayerfully seek out what it means for the Church of God to be the Church of God. I have found vocabulary that will help me bring together my passing interests in eschatology and Christology to a deeper and more penetrating synthesis with pneumetology, ecclesiology, and theological anthropology.
Even for those with a passing understanding of the aforementioned topics, this book is a challenging read. I think this is especially true for protestants like me. To be honest, I almost put the book down after the first 60 pages--a historical piece on the ontology of personhood and the category of communion in ontology. Things remained equally challenging through the second chapter addressing the question of the ontological and historical character of truth.
Things got better for me beginning in the third chapter. "Being as Communion" is a collection of essays. As a collection, the book tended to circle around the same topics over and over and over again. One became aware of the problems of the synthesis between christology and pneumetology, the eucharist and catholicity, the one and the many, apostolic succession, ministry and the eucharist, etc. One also became more aware of Zizioulas' solutions to these problems as asked from different positions and problems. It's repetition became a key to its unlocking.
In the end, this is too large of work and I am too lazy to evaluate in a medium like this. Let it be said that I have found a vast treasure house of theological reflection that will continue to shape me as I prayerfully seek out what it means for the Church of God to be the Church of God. I have found vocabulary that will help me bring together my passing interests in eschatology and Christology to a deeper and more penetrating synthesis with pneumetology, ecclesiology, and theological anthropology.
July 14, 2015
One of the questions Zizoulas tackles sounds odd to a layman, but to philosophers it's no small inquiry: what is a person? We can dispense with biological answers: a person is a being born to people, is homo sapiens, etc., because the question is not: what is a human? or even: what is an individual? The question regards uniqueness: what makes you a unique person, as opposed to, say, the 9,487,756,321st human to be birthed since the dawn of man?
Zizoulas ties his answer to communion--we are unique humans insofar as we are in intimate relationship with other beings. I am no longer human number 9,487,756,321 when I become a son, a husband, a father, a friend. Of course everyone is automatically someone's child, if nothing else, so surely that would settle the silly question, but if you have no place in your heart for your parents, for siblings, for spouse, children, friends, then while you may have biological or social ties, you are not in relationship with them. If you do not love others more than yourself, in other words, you are nothing more than human number 9,487,756,321.
The connection to communion in the Orthodox faith, then, is a recognition of the relationships within the Trinity. Each Being of the Trinity reverences and adores the other, and they invite us to be part of their communion. Our being is tied up in our embrace of the Trinitarian God, our destruction, as unique beings, is brought about when we reject this invitation. Zizoulas traces the implications of this understanding to various topics: why the Orthodox liturgy has the structure it has, our understanding of the authority of bishops, the nature of baptism, and so on, which is probably uninteresting to the non-Orthodox (though it does offer, indirectly, criticisms of non-Orthodox traditions), but which to the Orthodox can be eye-opening. "So THAT'S why we do it that way." Overall a thought-inspiring book.
Zizoulas ties his answer to communion--we are unique humans insofar as we are in intimate relationship with other beings. I am no longer human number 9,487,756,321 when I become a son, a husband, a father, a friend. Of course everyone is automatically someone's child, if nothing else, so surely that would settle the silly question, but if you have no place in your heart for your parents, for siblings, for spouse, children, friends, then while you may have biological or social ties, you are not in relationship with them. If you do not love others more than yourself, in other words, you are nothing more than human number 9,487,756,321.
The connection to communion in the Orthodox faith, then, is a recognition of the relationships within the Trinity. Each Being of the Trinity reverences and adores the other, and they invite us to be part of their communion. Our being is tied up in our embrace of the Trinitarian God, our destruction, as unique beings, is brought about when we reject this invitation. Zizoulas traces the implications of this understanding to various topics: why the Orthodox liturgy has the structure it has, our understanding of the authority of bishops, the nature of baptism, and so on, which is probably uninteresting to the non-Orthodox (though it does offer, indirectly, criticisms of non-Orthodox traditions), but which to the Orthodox can be eye-opening. "So THAT'S why we do it that way." Overall a thought-inspiring book.
July 26, 2011
I read this book many years ago in French, when I was Orthodox in heart. A few years after my conversion to Orthodoxy, it’s good to read this again, in its English updated version – I believe some passages were not in the French version I read.
This is not an easy read, and it would be helpful for you to know a few Greek words, but the effort is worth it. It is a very refreshing book, still so valid today, though it was written about 30 years. This is the type of book I wish every bishop, priest, and lay christian would read and ponder, and then get together to see how they could implement some of it.
What struck me this time is how united his theological vision is. Of course, this should go without saying for an Orthodox theologian, but it is not always that obvious. What I mean by his united vision, is that all is one, and works only as one: theology, Pneumatology, Christology, ecclesiology, patristics, and sacramental life, among I am sure other things I should mention here.
He is very clear at showing that if current Christian theology based itself on serious Pneumatology and Christology, we would not be in the insane and unchristian situations we find in the Church today.
This communion is necessary not only between “topics”, if I may say, but of course between all persons making up the Body of Christ. And this is where I found Zizioulas’s vision extremely important. If in an ideal world, all Christians had been made aware of the realities he underlines here, would there still be so many pulls at power and competition, at wanting to be what the other is or has, whether it be at the level of ministries, parishes, dioceses?
Please go to the original post to read the rest of my review, presenting 2 important excerpts of the book:
http://wordsandpeace.wordpress.com/20...
Emma @ Words And Peace
This is not an easy read, and it would be helpful for you to know a few Greek words, but the effort is worth it. It is a very refreshing book, still so valid today, though it was written about 30 years. This is the type of book I wish every bishop, priest, and lay christian would read and ponder, and then get together to see how they could implement some of it.
What struck me this time is how united his theological vision is. Of course, this should go without saying for an Orthodox theologian, but it is not always that obvious. What I mean by his united vision, is that all is one, and works only as one: theology, Pneumatology, Christology, ecclesiology, patristics, and sacramental life, among I am sure other things I should mention here.
He is very clear at showing that if current Christian theology based itself on serious Pneumatology and Christology, we would not be in the insane and unchristian situations we find in the Church today.
This communion is necessary not only between “topics”, if I may say, but of course between all persons making up the Body of Christ. And this is where I found Zizioulas’s vision extremely important. If in an ideal world, all Christians had been made aware of the realities he underlines here, would there still be so many pulls at power and competition, at wanting to be what the other is or has, whether it be at the level of ministries, parishes, dioceses?
Please go to the original post to read the rest of my review, presenting 2 important excerpts of the book:
http://wordsandpeace.wordpress.com/20...
Emma @ Words And Peace
Read
July 27, 2011Some chapters in this books is absolutely excellent and probably ground breaking. His thoughts on personhood in contrast to individualism and Christology in combination with pneumatology in order to understand the one and the many is fantastic. He writes in a complicated and compressed way so that it can be hard to follow and one should probably have a basic knowledge of Greek in order to really get the book. It is as such not a book for the interested amateur theologian. I also think, as a Western evanglical that there is a little too mcuh focus on ecclesiology from a Eastern Orthodox perspective. Yet, his main argument is that Christianity hinges on the eucharistic community. One can, therefore, not avoid the question of church and bishops etc.
If you are a theologian and at all interested in questions of personhood, church and Orthodox theology then it is a must!
If you are a theologian and at all interested in questions of personhood, church and Orthodox theology then it is a must!
June 1, 2016
The Introduction and opening two chapters gave me an intellectual orgasm as they discussed a eucharistic ontology of the person, including a review of key theological developments in the Patristic era. I've long struggled with elements of this orthodox Trinitarianism, and Zizioulas gives the most profound presentation of it I've read.
From chapter three on the focus is on issues that were of less interest to me as someone rooted in the Free Church tradition--apostolic succession, catholicity, ordination, the structure of the church, ecumenical issues between the Roman and Orthodox churches. But I was convicted by his vision of a local church which should be all Christians in a place celebrating communion together, overcoming all divisions. American pluralism has quite clearly created a radically new and different experience of the Christian church.
From chapter three on the focus is on issues that were of less interest to me as someone rooted in the Free Church tradition--apostolic succession, catholicity, ordination, the structure of the church, ecumenical issues between the Roman and Orthodox churches. But I was convicted by his vision of a local church which should be all Christians in a place celebrating communion together, overcoming all divisions. American pluralism has quite clearly created a radically new and different experience of the Christian church.
March 12, 2015
This was the most challenging book I've read in a while and the low rating is more a result of my lack of understanding. The first two chapters deal with personhood and there is a lot of philosophical content about what constitutes "being" and "personhood." The latter half of the book deal with issues of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, focusing a lot on historical development and the eucharist, that isn't all that relevant to me as a member of the C&MA. It also feels as if Zizioulas is writing more to an Orthodox audience rather than novices or strangers to the Orthodox tradition. What I did like (and from what I could understand) is his focus as personhood as a relational reality and the emphasis on the local.
September 26, 2016
This was a pretty tough slog, even for someone with some knowledge of Orthodox theology. The first half of the book has some great thoughts on identity that should be useful for anyone with a eucharistic theology. The last half or so of the book wasn't really geared toward Christians outside of the Eastern tradition, which I don't fault it for. What I do take issue with is that it felt unnecessarily difficult. The author seems to assume you understand things exactly the way he does and feels compelled to make the book a lot tougher to follow than it needed to be. Some other Orthodox theologians, like Alexander Schmemann, are able to write just as richly and yet remain much more accessible.
December 19, 2012
A sheer delight. Not a book to plow through by any means... I took my time... partially due to the fact that the book is somewhat "dense"... and also, when I first read it - I was in the midst of my conversion to EO (so there was a lot of new stuff by way of categories and methodology)... but overall the effort (reading, re-reading, reflecting then re-reading again) was worth the reward! Have read the book several time since and each time I am edified, challenged and convicted anew of the centrality of the life and experience we are called to in the Trinity. Certainly not an easy read - but still - one of the most important and significant books that I have ever read.
January 2, 2016
I will definitely need to re-read this shortly.
A most influential book, given time. This "seminal" work may prove to be the path toward a truly united Christian Church, the like of which we have not seen since the Church was born on Pentecost until the Great Schism.
I would have wanted some more practical application of his ideas of 'community' than he offers here, instead of the purely theoretical, but the implications of his thoughts may well ripple into the future in ways that we cannot foresee.
I'm looking forward to reading his earlier works.
November 29, 2015
This is such a cool book to read. Love the deep understanding of the the origins of Christian Theology in the Patristic age.
Such a help for me in understanding Baptismal theology and the shape that Christian Existence takes with an existentialist bent. Love this book.
Such a help for me in understanding Baptismal theology and the shape that Christian Existence takes with an existentialist bent. Love this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews