Globalization and Orthodox Christianity

Globalization and Orthodox
Christianity
Downloaded by 201.37.160.92 at 12:43 15 October 2017
In this book Roudometof offers a brilliant examination of the manifold

entanglements between Orthodox Christianity and globalization processes
across history. Broad in scope and rich in material, this book fills a gap con-
cerning a Christian tradition that remained, until recently, mostly untheo-
rized. This is an indispensable book for all those interested not only in the
relations between globalization and religion, but also in Eastern Orthodox
Christianity and its historical transformations. Vasilios N. Makrides, Uni-
versity of Erfurt, Germany
With approximately 200 to 300 million adherents worldwide, Orthodox

Christianity is among the largest branches of Christianity, yet it remains rela-
tively understudied. This book examines the rich and complex entanglements
between Orthodox Christianity and globalization, offering a substantive con-
tribution to the relationship between religion and globalization as well as the
relationship between Orthodox Christianity and the sociology of religion
and more broadly, to the interdisciplinary field of Religious Studies.
Although deeply engaged with history, this book does not simply narrate
the history of Orthodox Christianity as a world religion, and it does not
address theological issues or cover all the individual trajectories of each sub-
group or subdivision of the faith. Orthodox Christianity is the object of the
analysis, but author Victor Roudometof speaks to a broader audience inter-
ested in culture, religion and globalization. Roudometof argues in favor of
using globalization instead of modernization as the main theoretical vehicle
for analyzing religion, an approach that displaces secularization to argue for
multiple hybridizations of religion as a suitable strategy for analyzing reli-
gious phenomena. This approach offers Orthodox Christianity as a test case
that illustrates the presence of historically specific but theoretically distinct
globalizations that are applicable to all faiths.
Victor Roudometof is Associate Professor in the Department of Social and

Political Sciences at the University of Cyprus. His main research interests
include religion, nationalism, culture and globalization. He is the author of
over 30 scholarly articles and two monographs. He has also edited several
volumes and issues of scholarly journals.
Routledge Studies in Religion
1 Judaism and Collective Life 10 Religion, Language, and Power

Self and Community in the Edited by Nile Green and
Religious Kibbutz Mary Searle-Chatterjee
Aryei Fishman
11 Shared Idioms, Sacred Symbols,
2 Foucault, Christianity and and the Articulation of Identities
Interfaith Dialogue in South Asia
Henrique Pinto Edited by Kelly Pemberton &
Michael Nijhawan
3 Religious Conversion and
Identity 12 Theology, Creation, and
The Semiotic Analysis of Texts Environmental Ethics
Massimo Leone From Creatio Ex Nihilo
to Terra Nullius
4 Language, Desire, and Whitney Bauman
Theology
A Genealogy of the Will 13 Material Religion and
to Speak Popular Culture
Nolle Vahanian E. Frances King
5 Metaphysics and Transcendence 14 Adam Smith as Theologian

Arthur Gibson Edited by Paul Oslington
6 Sufism and Deconstruction 15 The Entangled God

A Comparative Study of Derrida Divine Relationality and Quantum
and Ibn Arabi Physics
Ian Almond By Kirk Wegter-McNelly
7 Christianity, Tolerance and 16 Aquinas and Radical

Pluralism Orthodoxy
A Theological Engagement with A Critical Inquiry
Isaiah Berlins Social Theory Paul J. DeHart
Michael Jinkins
17 Animal Ethics and Theology
8 Negative Theology and Modern The Lens of the Good Samaritan
French Philosophy Daniel K. Miller
Arthur Bradley
18 The Origin of Heresy
9 Law and Religion A History of Discourse in
Edited by Peter Radan, Second Temple Judaism and
Denise Meyerson and Early Christianity
Rosalind F. Atherton Robert M. Royalty, Jr.
19 Buddhism and Violence 26 Gender and Power in
Militarism and Buddhism in Contemporary Spirituality
Modern Asia Ethnographic Approaches
Edited by Vladimir Tikhonov Edited by Anna Fedele and
and Torkel Brekke Kim E. Knibbe
20 Popular Music in Evangelical 27 Religions in Movement

Youth Culture The Local and the Global in
Stella Sai-Chun Lau Contemporary Faith Traditions
Robert W. Hefner, John
Hutchinson, Sara Mels and
21 Theology and the Science of Christiane Timmerman
Moral Action
Virtue Ethics, Exemplarity,
and Cognitive Neuroscience 28 William Jamess Hidden
Edited by James A. Van Slyke, Religious Imagination
Gregory R. Peterson, Kevin S. A Universe of Relations
Reimer, Michael L. Spezio and Jeremy Carrette
Warren S. Brown
29 Theology and the Arts
Engaging Faith
22 Abrogation in the Quran Ruth Illman and W. Alan Smith
and Islamic Law
By Louay Fatoohi 30 Religion, Gender, and the Public
Sphere
23 A New Science of Edited by Niamh Reilly
Religion and Stacey Scriver
Edited by Gregory W. Dawes
and James Maclaurin
31 An Introduction to Jacob
Boehme
24 Making Sense of the Four Centuries of Thought and
Secular Reception
Critical Perspectives from Edited by Ariel Hessayon and
Europe to Asia Sarah Apetrei
Edited by Ranjan Ghosh
32 Globalization and Orthodox
25 The Rise of Modern Jewish Christianity
Politics The Transformations of a
Extraordinary Movement Religious Tradition
C.S. Monaco Victor Roudometof
Globalization and Orthodox
Christianity
The Transformations of
a Religious Tradition
Victor Roudometof
First published 2014
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
2014 Taylor & Francis
The right of Victor Roudometof to be identified as the author of the editorial
material has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any

information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Roudometof, Victor, 1964
Globalization and Orthodox Christianity : the transformations of a religious
tradition / by Victor Roudometof.
pages cm. (Routledge studies in religion ; 32)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Orthodox Eastern ChurchHistory21st century. 2. Globalization
Religious aspectsOrthodox Eastern Church. I. Title.
BX106.23.R68 2013
281.9dc23
2013013554
ISBN: (hbk) 978-0-415-84373-7
ISBN: (ebk) 978-0-203-75416-0
Maps by Sophia Vyzoviti
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
List of Maps ix
List of Tables xi
List of Abbreviations xiii
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xvii
1 Globalization and Orthodox Christianity:

Preliminary Considerations 1
2 The Fragmentation of Christianity 18
3 From Christian Orthodoxy to Orthodox Christianity 38
4 Transitions to Modernity 59
5 Nationalism and the Orthodox Church:

The Modern Synthesis 79
6 Colonialism and Ethnarchy: The Case of Cyprus 102
7 Orthodox Christianity as a Transnational Religion 119
8 Territoriality, Globality and Orthodoxy 137
9 Religion and Globalization: Orthodox Christianity

Across the Ages 155
Appendix 173
Notes 175
Bibliography 193
Index 219
Maps
2.1 The Eastern Roman Empire with border changes

between the sixth and 12th centuries 21
4.1 Eastern Europe in 1789: the Ottoman and
Russian empires 60
5.1 Eastern Europe under communism, 19451989 90
5.2 Eastern Europe after the fall of communism (2012) 92
Tables
2.1 The vernacularization of Chalcedonian Christianity 26

2.2 Indigenizations of Christianity in the Eastern
Mediterranean (3001589 AD) 31
9.1 Historical eras of globalization and
Orthodoxys glocalizations 158
Abbreviations
EC-PATR Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

EU European Union
OCA Orthodox Church in America
OCG Orthodox Church of Greece
OCL Orthodox Christian Laity
ROC Russian Orthodox Church
ROCOR Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (also known as
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad or ROCA)
UAOC Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
UOC-KP Ukrainian Orthodox ChurchKievan (or Kyivan) Patriarchate
Preface
This book represents nearly a decade of work in the field of the sociology of
Orthodox Christianity. Attending and presenting papers at the conferences
and congresses of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (Houston,
United States, 2000), the International Society for the Sociology of Religion
(Zagreb, Croatia, 2005; Leipzig, Germany 2007; Aix-en-Provence, France
2011) and the Association for the Sociology of Religion (Philadelphia, 2005;
New York, United States, 2007) offered me the opportunity to meet, talk
and collaborate with the other scholars who form the relatively small but vi-
brant group of people interested in Orthodox Christianity. This interaction
has been a source of inspiration and has contributed greatly to shaping my
thinking about this project. My participation in the 20092010 workshop
series on Nation, State and Religion in the Mediterranean: From 1789 to
1960, sponsored by the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, helped me to further
sharpen the scope and aims of this project.
I should publicly express my gratitude to the University of Cyprus Li-
brary, whose resources were extensively used. In particular, my deep ap-
preciation goes to librarian Evie Antoniou, for her invaluable assistance in
delivering books and articles from other libraries. Many thanks also go to
Aleca Spyrou, who supervised the librarys purchases. I further owe a debt
of gratitude to Denise Rothschild for her expert professional assistance in
proofreading and editing the manuscripts final drafts. For their assistance
with the manuscripts final stage, I should thank the publishers staff. Of
course, all mistakes or other shortcomings in the final manuscript are my
own responsibility. For the cartography, I should thank Dr. Sophia Vyzo-
viti (Department of Architecture, University of Thessaly, Greece). Further
thanks go to Robert Swanson for this professional assistance in the con-
struction of the books index.
The text contains numerous references to names, places, organizations
and titles. These require rendering words into English or transliterating from
several languages. This is always a challenging task. For some languages
(such as Greek), no standard transliteration system exists. Sometimes, there
are differences in the names of cities or places (for example, Kiev). Other
xvi Preface
times, different citation styles render the same term differently. To the extent
possible, these matters have been dealt with according to standard scholarly
conventions, and an effort was made to achieve consistency. I would like
to apologize in advance for whatever shortcomings the readers careful eye
detects in the manuscript. The preparation of this manuscript has benefited
from the work and advice of numerous individuals. I would like to thank
my long-term collaborators and co-authors Vasilios N. Makrides (Religious
Studies, University of Erfurt, Germany), Alexander Agadjanian (Russian
University of the Humanities, Moscow, Russia), Michalis N. Michael (De-
partment of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cyprus) and
Anna Karpathakis (Sociology, Kingsborough Community College, New
York) for their assistance, encouragement and help as I have sought their
judgment, advice and expertise on numerous occasions. My warm thanks

also go to my colleagues, Lucian Leustean (Aston University), Tassos An-
astasiadis (McGill University), Effie Fokas (London School of Economics),
Nicos Kokosalakis (University of Liverpool), Lina Molokotos-Liederman
(London School of Economics), Roberto Cipriani (University of Rome III,
Italy), Irene Dietzel (University of Erfurt, Germany), Dimitris Antoniou
(Oxford, UK), Heinz Richter (University of Mannheim, Germany), Athena
S. Leoussi (University of Reading), Catharina Raudvere and Trine Stauning
Willert (University of Copenhagen), George Kourvetaris (Northern Illinois
University) and Gavril Flora (Partium Christian University, Oradea, Roma-
nia) for all their generous offers of knowledge, expertise and assistance over
the years.
I should extend my gratitude to Elisabeth Arweck, editor of the Journal
of Contemporary Religion; David Yamane, editor of Sociology of Religion;
Khacig Tololyan, editor of Diaspora; and Gerard Delanty, editor of the Eu-
ropean Journal of Social Theory, for their constructive role and useful feed-
back in the process of submission and evaluation of the articles published
in these journals. Further thanks go to the anonymous reviewers of these
journals for their sound criticism and useful remarks that contributed to
improving the quality of the work. These articles offered me the opportu-
nity to develop ideas and interpretations that ultimately coalesced into this
manuscript.
Finally, I would like to thank Dimitris Vogiatzis, Giota Politi, Marios
Constantinou, Marianna Papastephanou, Nikitas Hadjimichail, Elisa Dia-
mantopoulou, William Haller, Fabienne Baider, Monica Andreou, Daphne
Halikiopoulou, Nikolaos and Panayiota Roudometof, Costas Danopoulos
and Panagiotis Christias.
Acknowledgments
Scattered throughout the books chapters are paragraphs and sentences that
have been previously published in various articles, chapters and books. This
material has been extensively revised or extended into its current format to
form part of this books broader arguments. In all these instances, references
to the earlier publications are made in the text or in each chapters notes. It
is nonetheless necessary to acknowledge that material previously published
is included in all or parts of the following chapters.
Chapters 1 and 9 include material from my article The Glocalizations of
Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which appeared in the European Journal
of Social Theory 2013 (Vol. 2) 2, pp. 22645. Chapter 6 incorporates most
of Church, State and Politics in 19th Century Cyprus (co-authored with
Michalis N. Michael), published in Thetis: Mannheimer Beitrge zur Klas-
sischen Archologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns 2010 (Vol.
16/17), pp. 97104. Chapter 6 also includes material from The Trans-
formation of Greek Orthodox Religious Identity in 19th century Cyprus,
published in Chronos: Revue dHistoire de lUniversit de Balamand 2010
(Vol. 22), pp. 723.
In Chapter 5, the section on Orthodox institutions in the Ottoman Em-
pire includes material previously published in The Evolution of Greek-
Orthodoxy in the Context of World-Historical Globalization in Orthodox
Christianity in 21st Century Greece: The Role of Religion in Politics, Eth-
nicity and Culture, edited by V. Roudometof and V. N. Makrides (Alder-
shot, UK: Ashgate, 2010, pp. 2138).
In Chapter 7, a portion of the section on the Greek American experience
includes material previously published in From Greek-Orthodox Diaspora
to Transnational Hellenism: Greek Nationalism and the Identities of the
Diaspora in The Call of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and
Present, edited by A. Gal, A.S. Leoussi and A.D. Smith (London: Brill/UCL,
2010, pp. 13966). In the same chapter, the section on the dilemmas of
ethnic and religious identity in the United States includes updated and re-
vised material from the chapter Greek Americans and Transnationalism:
Religion, Class, and Community (co-authored with Anna Karpathakis)
xviii Acknowledgments
in Communities Across Borders: New Immigrants and Transnational Cul-
tures, edited by P. Kennedy and V. Roudometof (London: Routledge, 2002,
pp. 4154).
Finally, Chapter 8 is a heavily revised and extended version of Greek-
Orthodoxy, Territoriality and Globality: Religious Responses and Insti-
tutional Disputes, published in Sociology of Religion 2008 (Vol. 69) 1,
pp. 6791.
1 Globalization and Orthodox
Christianity
Preliminary Considerations
With approximately 200 to 300 million adherents worldwide, Orthodox

Christianity is among the largest branches of Christianity, yet it remains
relatively understudied.1 Orthodox Christianity is still often cast in the role
of the subaltern Other and falls victim to a latent yet widespread Orienta-
lism. In Western Europe and North America, knowledge of Orthodox Chris-
tianity is all too frequently tainted by negative stereotypes, partiality and
partisanship.2 This volume examines the variety of entanglements between
Orthodox Christianity and globalization. At the heart of the arguments
pursued in the books chapters lies an effort to show the rich and complex
nature of these entanglements. With this effort, the book aims to make a
substantive contribution to the relationship between religion and globaliza-
tion as well as to the relationship between Orthodox Christianity and the
sociology of religionand more broadly, to the interdisciplinary field of
religious studies. To the extent possible, the book has been written with the
goal of rendering the arguments accessible even to nonspecialist readers.
Although the book is deeply engaged with history, its objectives are not to
offer a history of Orthodox Christianity as a world religion, to address theo-
logical issues or to exhaustively cover all the individual trajectories of each
subgroup or subdivision of the faith. Orthodox Christianity is the object of
the analysis, but the goal is to speak to a broader audience interested in the
general themes of culture, religion and globalization. The broader objective
is to use the historical record of Orthodox Christianity as empirical material
to theorize the varied historical entanglements between local cultures and
world religions within the context of world-historical globalization.
This introductory chapter begins with a critique of widely held precon-
ceptions about Orthodox Christianity. Rejecting these preconceptions, the
chapter views Orthodox Christianity as capable of adapting to various eras
and settings. To contextualize the books topic within the scholarly tradi-
tions on the study of religion in the social sciences, this chapter examines
the recent re-evaluation of the secularization paradigm and the emergence
of globalization as a distinct problematic for analyzing the relations among
religion, culture and social change. The use of globalization as the overarch-
ing framework offers a new way to understand the historical trajectories of
2 Globalization and Orthodox Christianity
Orthodox Christianity and has the potential to offer a more evenhanded
treatment of this religious tradition. This chapter concludes with a discus-
sion of various issues regarding historical periodization in relation to the
books topic and outlines the themes pursued in the following chapters.
Readers unfamiliar with the hierarchical order of the faith may consult the
appendix for a brief outline of Orthodox Christianitys hierarchal structure.
BEYOND THE CONVENTIONAL IMAGE

OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY
Traditionally, most of the Orthodox countries have been included in the cat-
egory of Eastern Bloc nations and, following 1989, in the ambiguous category
of postcommunist Eastern Europe. Since the 17th century, Western ob-
servers have, in general, negatively evaluated the Orthodox religious tra-
dition (Wolff 2001). These evaluations were part of the broader Western
European prejudice against Eastern European countries, which were viewed
as backward and failing the Western European standards of civilization
(Wolff 1994). During the Cold War era, this long-standing assumption in
public and academic opinion was expressed by holding the Orthodox cul-
tural legacy, at least in part, responsible for the political imposition of com-
munism. During the 1990s, influential commentators (Kaplan 1993; Kennan
1993; Huntington 1996) suggested a link between the cultural traditions of
Eastern Europe and the failure of most of these countries to successfully
transition to democracy or to successfully integrate into the new post-1989
Europe (Clark 2000). According to this essentialist approach, communism
was but a temporary manifestation of an anti-Western and antimodern re-
action that is deeply encoded in the Orthodox cultural tradition. Extended
to the postcommunist era, this line of reasoning suggests that this cultural
tradition has endorsed the two most recent forms of anti-Western and anti-
modern reaction: ethno-nationalism and fundamentalist protectionism. The
special link of Orthodoxy with local national identities is frequently used
to support this thinking. As Kitromilides (2007a: xiii) insightfully observes,
[Western] prejudice dies hard and is often rekindled by power politics and
an inability to understand the Eastern half of a shared continentto the
point that iron curtains are imagined to be replaced by velvet curtains as-
sociated with the aesthetics of Orthodoxy.
With the collapse of communism, sociological research has to some de-
gree focused on the contemporary situation within Orthodox Christianity
(Borowik 1999, 2006; Borowik and Tomka 2001; Roudometof, Agadjanian,
and Pankhurst 2005; Byrnes and Katzenstein 2006, part III; Naumescu 2007;
Rvay and Tomka 2007). In most cases, however, the combination of the
experience of communism in the former Soviet Union, Romania, Albania,
Bulgaria and former Yugoslavia and the cultural heritage of Orthodox
Christianity in Eastern and Southeastern Europe has made it quite difficult
Globalization and Orthodox Christianity 3
to discern the role of Orthodox Christianity as such on contemporary politi-
cal and cultural developments.3 Instead of focusing on historical specificity,
in many cases, generalizations are made about the faith. Ramet (2006:148)
writes, Whatever changes may impact the world, the Orthodox Church
refuses, for the most part, to accommodate itself to change, standing fixed
in time, its bishops gaze riveted on an idyllic past which serves as their
beacon. This statement aptly summarizes Orthodox Christianitys prevail-
ing image. The preservation of a presumed unbroken religious tradition has
been the conscious goal of the overwhelming majority of religious move-
ments, authors and activists in the Orthodox cultural landscape (Agadjanian
and Roudometof 2005). By and large, the entire material and symbolic
order of the faith has been used to preserve or even enhance a sense of differ-
ence that remains anchored in the preservation of such a (literal and/or con-
structed) religious tradition (for a discussion, see McGuckin 2008). In most
nations of the Eastern European Orthodox heartland, this religious tradition
is fused with local identities into a single genre of identity, whereby church,
ethnicity or nationality become signifiers of a single collective entity. The
phrase religious tradition in this books subtitle underscores precisely this
feature of the faith, but it is also an acknowledgement that, as MacCulloch
(2009:7) insightfully observes, the Bible . . . embodies not a tradition, but
many traditions.
In Orthodox Christianity, there has been a taken-for-granted unity be-
tween religion and community (Berger 2005:441). The Church, as Ortho-
dox theologians tirelessly repeat, is not simply the religious hierarchy or
the formal institution but the entire body of those who are publicly affili-
ated with the faith. The importance of the faith lies at the level of public
culturein contrast to individualized expressions of religiosity. Indeed, to
the extent that Orthodoxy allows persons to navigate the symbolic universe
of religious metaphors on their own, it promotes the individual privatiza-
tion of religious experience (Kokosalakis 1995:25960). However, the ac-
commodation of individuality should not be conflated with the public role,
function and importance of faith. Instead, the preservation of a dominant
position in society and vis--vis the state has been a long-held objective for
most Orthodox churches, which thus operate as national churches rather
than as denominations.
This finding should not lead to misguided perceptions that Orthodox
Christianity is incapable of tolerating social change or of instigating new
practices and institutions that can adjust to newfound realities. According
to Orthodox theology, the ancient principle of expediency (oikonomia) al-
lows for subtlety and flexibility in canonical procedures as these necessar-
ily adapt to popular faith. Accordingly, the Church can compromise
in order to accommodate transgressions against established doctrine and
practice on certain occasions (Kokosalakis 1987:41). Even when there are
texts that establish doctrine on specific issues, these may be subject to flex-
ible interpretation under the principle of expediency. As a result, the Church
in general is not concerned with the imposition of strict rules of religious
conduct and belief; it can afford accommodations to different situations as
these arise. The Church can use popular forms of religious expression even
when they seem at variance with its own doctrine and, in turn, can use them
to strengthen its own position in society and in its relations with the state.
Culture and religion intertwine in a reciprocal relationship in which change
is both implicitly accommodated and explicitly refuted (for examples, see
Roudometof and Makrides 2010). Although formal introductions of reli-
gious innovation are theologically refuted, their practice can be accepted
thanks to the aforementioned principle of expediency.
Therefore, it is important to separate practice from rhetoric. If religious
rhetoric or the projected image of an unbroken religious tradition is taken at
face value, the image of religious traditionalism is transformed into the ob-
servers reality. Orthodox Christianity is then cast in the role of an inherently
conservative antidemocratic or antimodern religion that lacks the resources
or the capacities to adapt to the realities of contemporary life. To combat
such stereotypes, it is necessary to adopt a far more nuanced approach, one
that recognizes the diversity of Orthodox Christianityhence the reason I
speak of transformations (in the plural) of Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christianity
should be regarded as possessing the same mutability and capacity as other
branches of Christianity to fuse into different contexts.
SHIFTING PARADIGMS: FROM

SECULARIZATION TO GLOBALIZATION
Although the study of religion was previously marginal to mainstream socio-

logy, the field has become far more central to sociology in the last 30 years.4
Until the recent past, sociology conceptualized religion mainly along two
dimensions: the institutional and the individual. Lost in this dichotomy was
the noninstitutional but collective and public cultural dimension of religion
(Besecke 2005:179). This collective and public cultural dimension is par-
ticularly relevant to the study of Orthodox Christianity.
The rise of globalization as a new central concept for the study of religion
is related to the decline of the traditional secularization paradigm and the
subsequent reframing of its use in sociology and related fields. For most of
the 20th century, the agenda of the sociology of religion has been dominated
by the debate over secularization (Turner 2009). Social scientists have heat-
edly debated the scope, nature, extent and parameters of secularization in
an effort to unveil the overall patterns and/or trajectories of the modern
world. These arguments have been superseded by reevaluations favorable
to the skeptics of the secularization thesis (Berger et al. 1999, Berger 2002;
Sociology of Religion 1999). In this reappraisal, Western Europe, once re-
garded as the paradigmatic case of secularization, is viewed as an excep-
tion to global patterns, whereas the United States, once regarded as an
exceptional case, is viewed as more typical of global patterns of religiosity
than previously thought (Davie 2002; for an exploration, see Berger, Davie,
and Fokas 2008). As a result, the terms of the secularization debate have
been reframed (Taylor 2007; for a critical assessment, see Torpey 2010).
Ours is a secular age, not because of a mere decline of individual religios-
ity or a growing churchstate separation, but because our framework of
understanding has shifted radically. Whereas one could scarcely be ignorant
of God in the Western world of 1500, that is certainly an option today. Secu-
larization is understood as a shift in the overall framework of the human
condition; it makes it possible for people to have a choice between belief and
nonbelief in a manner hitherto unknown. This generalization remains based
on the historical trajectory of the Western or trans-Atlantic world.5
Reconsidering secularity remains a project high on the agenda of the socio-

logy of religion. In such reconsiderations, secularism is conceived of as an
active project that is articulated alongside the Western modernity of the
post-1500 world (Gorski and Altinordou 2008; Calhoun, Juergensmeyer,
and Van Antwerpen 2011). Furthermore, Casanova (2006) argues in favor
of refining secularization and addressing Eurocentric biases in the framing
of that debate. He suggests that future revisions of the secularization para-
digm must take into account the construction of both sides of the secular
religious dichotomy. To do so, one must inquire into the complex negotia-
tions involved in defining the boundaries between them. In turn, this inquiry
raises the issue of the role that cultural traditions and, more broadly, culture
play in such processes.
Western social theory has been based on the themes of modernity and
secularity and has thus ignored Orthodox Christianity (Hann 2011). How-
ever, nearly all theories of religious modernity, including both sides of the
secularization debate, have been in large part unable to recognize or evalu-
ate the social and cultural power of religious expression (Robertson 2007).
Instead, these theories accept as natural or self-evident culturally specific no-
tions of religion, secularity and secularism. These notions have been deeply
involved in the making of the Western self-image (Asad 1993, 2003). When
one considers Orthodox Christianity, this cultural specificity is exposed,
and as a result, the Western self-image becomes problematic (McMylon and
Vorozhishcheva 2007).6
To consider the articulation of Orthodox Christianity, it is necessary
to extend the historical framework further into the pastinto Western
Europes Middle Ages. Although various theological issues were involved in
the OrthodoxCatholic disputes in these centuries, the divergent rationale
of the two sides centered on two major points. First, the conflict between
East and West was . . . over the relation between the authority of the bishop
of Rome and all other authority in the Church (Pelikan 1977:272). The
East rejected arguments in favor of papal primacy. Second, there were differ-
ences concerning the understanding of the relationship between sacerdotium
and imperium or regnum, or the spiritual realm and the realm of the state
(Sherrard 1992). In the Orthodox tradition, imperium was juxtaposed with
sacerdotium. For the Orthodox East, several papal practices overextended
ecclesiastical authority into the realm of state authority.7 These two realms
carry the connotations of sacred and profanebut not those of secular and
religious per se. Emperor Justinian I (527565 AD) succinctly summed it up
in his Sixth Novella (535):
There are two main gifts bestowed by God upon men: the priesthood
and the imperial authority (sacerdotium et imperium). Of these, the for-
mer is concerned with things divine, the latter with human affairs. . . .
Nothing is of greater importance to the Emperors than to support the
dignity of the priesthood, so that the priests may in turn pray to God for
them (quoted in Zernov 1963:66).
Even if the quotation above provides only a very rough sketch, it is fair
to say that in the longue dure, Orthodox Christianity is a culture with
a profound understanding of the sacredprofane division but also one
in which the secularreligious division became relevant only in the after-
math of the social and cultural modernization of Eastern and Southeastern
Europe, whereby modern states applied the Western-inspired logic of secu-
larism to their domains. It should therefore not be surprising that the theme
of secularity does not occupy a central place in this book.
The significance of culture for the study of religion and particularly of
Orthodox Christianity is revealed in issues of worship, rituals and popu-
lar practices. In Orthodox countries, religious worship and rituals are not
necessarily manifestations of individual belief, and religious practice does
not necessarily reflect the depth of personal conviction or belief (Tomka
2006). A case in point is the celebration of the Orthodox Easter, which is the
focal point of Orthodox Christianitys religious calendar (Berger 2005). Far
from a matter of individual religious self-expression, its celebration is quite
public. The entire rhythm of social life is adjusted to follow the religious
calendar of the Holy Week, culminating in the celebration of the Resurrec-
tion, symbolically set at midnight on Good Saturday but also involving the
Epitaph possession on Good Friday along the streets of towns and villages.
Public officials participate prominently in these rituals, and educational in-
stitutions go on a two-week hiatus, returning to classes one week after Eas-
ter Sunday (for additional examples, see Naletova 2009). Orthodox Easter
reflects broader differences among cultures or traditions. In turn, these dif-
ferences shape the role of religion in society.8
Far from engaging with this problematic, the overwhelming majority of
work in the sociology of religion naturalizes the trans-Atlantic cultural con-
text of its surroundings. Thus, the Orientalism of the past resurfaces as aca-
demic parochialism. Orthodox Christianity has been the object of academic
and lay stereotypes precisely because it exposes the limits of theoretical par-
adigms that work only for a selected group of Western nations or religious
traditions. Culture is thus often a means of exoticizing the Other, even when
this is clearly not intentional. Eastern Christianity (both in its Chalcedonian
and non-Chalcedonian variants) never experienced the trials and tribula-
tions of Western Christianity, and as a result, it has long been exceedingly
problematic to fit the experiences and cultural logic of this tradition within
the generalizations made on the basis of the Western experience.9
For this reason, the use of globalization as the overarching concept allows
less biased and certainly less Western-centered perspectives for studying his-
torical events and contemporary developments. Globalization is a term that
has been subject to multiple and often-competing definitions and perspec-
tives that reflect differences in research foci (for overviews, see Robertson
and White 2003; Ritzer 2007; Rossi 2008; Guillen 2001). In Robertsons
(1992:8) original statement, globalization is defined as the compression

of the world. By compression, Robertson means the accelerated pace of
contact among cultures, peoples and civilizations or the sense that the world
is shrinking.
Since the early 1990s, scholarship has explored various facets of the re-
lationship between globalization and religion.10 Although researchers have
examined the consequences of contemporary interconnectivity for religious
expression, scholarship addressing the historical intertwining of religion
and globalization has been far less prolific.11 In highlighting the histori-
cal dimension of globalization, the perspective adopted in this book does
not view globalization as a consequence of Western European modernity
(Giddens 1990:1) or as the result of a post-World War II second modernity
(Beck 1992; cf. Holton 2009; Roudometof 2009b). On the contrary, it is the
emergence of modernity in Western Europe and North America (typically
referred to as the rise of the West) that is viewed as taking place within
world-historical globalization (Hobson 2004)12 It is in this sense that the
use of globalization offers the possibility of liberation from the conventional
Western self-image that is implicit in the narrative of Western modernity and
reproduced in the conventional framings of the secularization debate.
This book aims to explore this hitherto relatively understudied concep-
tual link between a religious tradition and historical globalizationor the
problematic that Obadia (2010) has termed globalization and religion.
This problematic concerns the relations and the impact of globalization
on religion. From this point of view, even religionssuch as Orthodox
Christianitythat are not conventionally considered global are never-
theless influenced by globalization (Agadjanian and Roudometof 2005). In
pursuing a historical sociology of the relationship between Orthodox Chris-
tianity and globalization, there are some important scope restrictions: The
objective is to study a single branch of a religionand in fact an explicitly
conservative onein its public role. Privatized contexts of religiosity, indi-
vidual expressions of religious piety and noninstitutionalized religious ex-
pressions are not under consideration. This stipulation clearly places specific
scope restrictions on this inquiry. Although the following chapters primarily
concern institutionalized religion, institutions per se are not examined in
isolation from their broader social environment.
The use of historical globalization as the master heuristic device for this
books organization implies that there is no single monolithic master nar-
rative of modernization and secularization that is universally applicable.
Globalization, not modernization, provides the overall framework for
presenting and analyzing the transformations of Orthodox Christianity in
world history. Globalization is not a process that can be easily accounted
for within a single authoritative narrativerather the very notion of vari-
ous locales coalescing into the global promotes the construction of multiple
narratives that reflect the manner in which each group, religious tradition
or region contributes to the construction of the global. These multiple
alternative pathways result from the combinations of different historical

contingencies within contexts and cultures. The view of the global is always
a view from somewhere, and in this book, it is the view from within the
religious and cultural landscape of Orthodox Christianity.13
The paradoxical juxtaposition between the asserted immutable tradition
that lies at the heart of Orthodox Christianity and the social change expe-
rienced in historical time forms the core of the inquiry. The development of
different forms of Orthodox Christianity is viewed as a response to shifting
contexts and historical periods. The notion of globalization entails a plural-
ity of responses as outcomes instead of a single master narrative of secular-
ization (Beyer 2007). The notion of transformations provides a means for
capturing these plural religious responses of Orthodox Christianity. It offers
a conceptual vehicle to examine the different ways in which globalization
manifests itself in the historical record. Although certainly not intended
as an exhaustive account, the following discussion sums up some of these
ways.
First, there is the issue of the worldwide spread (or globalization in
the sense of spreading all over the world) of various religionsor what
might be termed the globalization of religion (Obadia 2010). Although
various religions are spread all over the globe, these are also simultaneously
localized; that is, they are reconstituted in new locales and reconstruct com-
munal attachments in new forms. This process might lead to global forms
of religiosity or an ecumenical orientation that decouples particularistic at-
tachments in favor of a global religious community, or it might lead to the
construction of new branches of a religion or religious varieties. It is im-
portant to stress that this is not an exclusively contemporary phenomenon.
The creation of distinct branches of Christianitysuch as Orthodox and
Catholic Christianitybears the mark of this particularization of religious
universalism. As Inglis (2010) suggests, this more historically oriented per-
spective on globalization is compatible with civilizational perspectives (Nel-
son 1981; Eisenstadt 2002). The interactions among different civilizational
or cultural constellations or politicalmilitary empires offer the opportunity
to account for the articulation of some cultural differences vis--vis others.
Second, there are the processes whereby a religions links to territory are
disrupted. Globalization entails a geographical component, which is best
expressed in terms of the dialectic of deterritorialization and reterritoriali-
zation (Held et al. 1999; Scholte 2000). Old forms of territorial attachments
are decoupled, and new forms of such attachments are forged. This dialectic
is prominently displayed both in trends toward greater ecumenical orienta-
tion and in transnational religion. It is the mechanism by which globaliza-
tion operates concretely to construct new forms of attachment. This dialectic
reshapes the worlds religious geography through increased cross-cultural
contact. It makes possible the lifting of social relations from their origi-
nal setting, whereby a locale ceases to be always geographically circum-
scribed. The opposite trend is also present, as the same processes lead to the
possibility of reconstructing, creating or recreating locality. In this sense, the

construction of locality can be viewed as a global phenomenon (Robertson
1992; Appadurai 1995). A distinct feature of this dimension concerns the
emergence of transnational religion, whereby communities living outside
the national territory of particular states maintain religious attachments to
their home churches or institutions.
Third, there are the various processes referred to as indigenization, hy-
bridization or glocalization (Roudometof 2003; Burke 2010; Canclini 1995;
for specific examples, see Altglas 2010). These processes register the ability
of religion to mold into the fabric of different communities in ways that
connect it intimately with communal and local relations. Religion sheds its
universal uniformity in favor of blending with localities. Global-local or
glocal religion thus represents a genre of expression, communication and
legitimation of collective and individual identities (Robertson 1991:282;
Robertson and Garret 1991:xv). Groups and individuals use this religious
tradition symbolically as emblematic of membership in an ethnic or national
group. Both institutional avenues and private means are employed in this
symbolic appropriation, and these are usually interwoven into a web of
other associations and relationships. Although communities continue to be
formed around the notion of locality, this category can be divorced from
its connection to a specific geographical area. Locality can be constructed
transnationally or symbolically alongside its traditional connection to a spe-
cific place (Kennedy and Roudometof 2002). These processes involve the
construction of cultural hybrids that blend religious universalism with sev-
eral forms of local (national or ethnic) particularisms. As the chapters in this
book will show, Orthodox Christianity is particularly prone to developing
such hybrids.
Therefore, from a globalhistorical perspective, the basic theoretical is-
sues are as follows: How does a religious tradition come into being in the
context of the broader interactions and cross-cultural contacts that consti-
tute globalization? How does a religious tradition respond and adapt to
the challenges instigated by the two major forces of the last two centuries,
namely, nationalism and modernity? What is the nature of the cross-national
entanglements that fall under the terms of deterritorialized and transna-
tional religion?
To effectively address these general theoretical issues, this book trans-
forms the above issues into historically specific questions about the relation-
ship between globalization and Orthodox Christianity. These questions are
as follows:
1. How has Orthodox Christianity become a religious tradition in the con-

text of historical globalization? What is its relationship to glocalization?
2. How has Orthodox Christianity responded to its encounters with na-
tionalism and modernity?
3. Is Orthodox Christianity a deterritorialized, transnational or
globalized religion? Can we perceive it as a global religion?
To answer these questions, cases and contexts have been selected accord-
ingly.14 The analytical strategy is to discuss different cases from the historical
record stressing those dimensions and features that are thematically relevant
for answering the above-mentioned central research questions. Both in this
introductory chapter and in the chapters that follow, the issue of case selec-
tion is addressed, and the theoretical rationale for referring at greater length
to specific cases or examples is spelled out. From this books perspective,
the sheer numerical strength of Russian Orthodoxywhich accounts for
nearly half of all Orthodox Christians today (Robertson 2008)does not
translate into a need to concentrate on that particular variant of Orthodoxy
alone. Such a choice would unduly restrict the range of historical variation
and would fail to include other historically relevant examples. Rather, the
strategy pursued is to focus on different historical cases. The goal is to per-
mit the emergence of a complex image of various historical configurations
that would otherwise be silenced in favor of a single monolithic narrative.
This strategy allows the placement of contemporary developments within
Russian Orthodoxy into their proper historical contexts. After all, this book
aims for an interpretation of the transformations of Orthodox Christianity
through its encounters with globalization in the longue dure of world his-
tory. The goal is to compensate for recent tendencies to overemphasize the
importance of communism and/or to identify the legacies of communism
with the cultural features of Orthodoxy.
PERIODIZATION AND THEMES
Berger (2005:441) suggests that throughout its history, Eastern Orthodoxy

has existed in four social forms: (a) as a state churchfirst in the East-
ern Roman Empire (Byzantium), then in Russia and later in the indepen-
dent states that grew out of the slow disintegration of the Ottoman empire;
(b) as a tolerated minority under Muslim rule, as in the Ottoman millet system;
(c) as a persecuted community under Communist rule; and (d) as a diaspora
community in Western Europe and America. There are important advantages
to this classification, such as the acknowledgement of the millet system and
the diaspora as two major historical conditions in Orthodox Christianity.
However, there are also limitations. For example, this books chapters show
that a world of difference separated the status of Orthodoxy in the Eastern
Roman Empire from its status as a national religion in the modern Eastern
Orthodox nation-states. Thus, to come to terms with the transformations
of Orthodox Christianity as a result of globalization and with the multiple
modernizations pursued in the Orthodox religious landscape over the last
centuries, the approach adopted in this book departs from Bergers classifi-
cation in the sense of connecting the historical stages or waves of globaliza-
tion to Orthodoxy and tracing the ways in which Orthodoxy responded to

the opportunities and challenges of each successive era.
To explore the complexity of the historical interactions between globa-
lization and Orthodox Christianity, it is necessary to frame the above-
mentioned questions in a conceptual scheme that offers both an operational
definition of globalization and a historical periodization of the process. In
the most comprehensive empirical study of globalization within the social
scientific literature, Held et al. (1999:16) operationalize globalization as a
process (or set of processes), which embodies a transformation in the spa-
tial organization of social relations and transactions. This transformation
generates transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activ-
ity and interactions, influencing the exercise of power. In their book, Held
et al. (1999) measure the shifts in spatial organization in terms of their ex-
tensity, intensity, velocity and impact upon the individuals life worlds. Held
et al. (1999) argue that these indicators are rather thin during the pre-
1500 periods. Subsequently, globalizations thickness (that is, its ability
to penetrate and influence individual life-worlds) is a feature of the post-
1500 period.15 Although they acknowledge the reality of pre-modern or
proto-globalization, Held et al. (1999) place greater emphasis on post-1500
developments, whereby a threefold periodization of globalization is devel-
oped: early modern globalization (1500s to mid-19th century), followed
by the modern era of globalization (roughly from the mid-19th century to
1945) and the contemporary period (1945 to the present) (see Held et al.
1999:41436). In this last stage, globalizations effects are visible almost
everywhere on the planet, and people have acquired an immediate aware-
ness of it through electronic media and mass communication.
This periodization offers important advantages. First, it allows one to
include the notion of globality as a feature that becomes critically important
for the contemporary era (1945 to the present), albeit without denying its
existence in earlier times. This is a theme that will be addressed in Chapter 8
of this volume. Second, it allows one to treat historical globalization as a
long-term phenomenon while simultaneously allowing for an examination
of the impact of Western modernity on Orthodox Christianity and the way
in which this branch of Christianity has responded to modernization, na-
tionalism and modernity. These themes are addressed in Chapters 4 and 5
of this volume.
However, this scheme has its own shortcomings. Its temporality reflects
the Western organization of historyparticularly in terms of its division of
globalization into early modern and modern eras. In the conventional nar-
rative of the social sciences, a privileged place is reserved for Western mo-
dernity, and as a result, Orthodox Christianity becomes a more marginal
concern and only enters the story at a later stage (Beyer 2006:122). How-
ever, the term modern itself is an ambiguous word that has been used to
denote various historical periods (LeGoff 1980). Originally, the term mod-
ern times (temps modernes) emerged in approximately 1800 and denoted
the three immediately preceding centuries. Still, this has never been simply a
matter of chronology: The modern age was also a philosophicalhistorical
perspective that was in turn shaped by the changes that the Age of Dis-
coveries, the Renaissance and the Reformation brought to Western Europe
and its trans-Atlantic territories (Habermas 1987:511). The periodization
of globalization in terms of its status vis--vis modernity implicitly accepts
modernity as the central organizational template of human history. In addi-
tion to this general and theoretical objection, there is also a specific one: Or-
thodox Christianity has a rather critical stance toward modernity, which is
often identified with rationalization and Westernization (Clendenin [1994]
2002; Makrides 2005) and rejected on theological grounds. The use of the
term modern as a central reference point inherently casts this branch of
Christianity in the role of an agent working against the currents of history.
The promise of using globalization as a heuristic device lies partly in
enabling research to go beyond the centrality of modernity in the organiza-
tion of history. It is also necessary to transcend the limits or biases of the
aforementioned periodization to come to terms with the key periods in the
history of Orthodox Christianity. In terms of considering pre-modern eras
of globalization, theorists and historians have suggested that pre-modern
globalization was both important and consequential for humanity (for ex-
amples, see Hopkins 2002; Robertson 2003; Hobson 2004). With regard to
religion in particular, a long-standing argument concerns the Axial Age of
civilizations and world religions (Eisenstadt 1986) as a period of an exten-
sive trend toward religious unity. In Therborns (2000) account, this wave
of globalization operated historically through the formation and diffusion
of world religions and the establishment of transcontinental civilizations.
Between the fourth and the seventh centuries AD, Christianity became the
Roman Empires official and dominant religionfamously soduring the
reign of Emperor Constantine I the Great (306337 AD), who also founded
Constantinople as the new seat of the Roman Empire.
For the purposes of understanding the crystallization of Orthodox Chris-
tianity as a religious tradition, the pre-modern era of globalization is criti-
cally important. Chapter 2 of this volume offers an account of this historical
trajectory. After addressing several important issues of social-scientific and
historical bias with regard to the study of Byzantium, the historical narrative
of this chapter concentrates on the manner in which historical globaliza-
tion, particularly the social and cultural vernacularization of Christianity,
accentuated the differences between the two parts of the Mediterranean. It
thus argues that by the ninth century AD, the Orthodox East had achieved a
level of self-awareness of its distinctiveness as a separate religious tradition
versus the West (i.e., Western Europe). Christian Orthodoxy did not fully
feature all the characteristics that later became part of Orthodox Chris-
tianity. Orthodoxy was deeply intertwined with the Eastern Roman Em-
pire. The chapter further addresses the initialization of a long-term process
of indigenization of Orthodoxy itself in the course of missionary activity
among the Slavs. The creation of Church Slavonic, the establishment of a

symbiotic relationship between religious authorities and Slavic leaders in
Russia, Serbia and Bulgaria and the subsequent fusion of ethnic identities
with religious adherence all led Orthodox Christianity to eventually become
a distinct religious tradition. These processes also effectively circumscribed
the importance of Greek as the ecclesiastical script language.
Chapter 3 of this volume continues the discussion of the formation of this
religious tradition by addressing the intercivilizational encounters between
the two parts of the Mediterranean from the First Crusade until the second
fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans (1453 AD). These encounters have
been deeply implicated in the construction of the very fabric of both Eastern
and Western Christianity. Orthodox Christianity as a religious tradition has
emerged in the course of these historical interactions. Of key importance
was the experience of the Crusades and, in particular, the first fall of Con-
stantinople (1204 ) in the Fourth Crusade. In its aftermath, religious hierar-
chy was forced to operate in an environment of clearly diminished imperial
authority. The chapter analyzes the actions undertaken in the post-1204
formative centuries and argues that it was in this era that Orthodox Chris-
tianity assumed its final form. It tracks institutional developments, theologi-
cal articulation and ecclesiastical practices that coalesced to crystallize this
religious tradition in the format that endures to this day.
These two chapters temporal organization reflects (a) the necessity to in-
quire into the longue dure to trace the historical intertwining of globaliza-
tion and the formation of the Orthodox religious tradition and (b) the fact
that Orthodoxy did not experience the Protestant Reformation or the con-
sequences of the discovery of the Americas with the same force as Western
Europe did. In Chapters 4 and 5 of this volume, the discussion shifts to ad-
dressing the impact of Western modernity on Orthodox Christianity. The
period covered in Chapter 4 roughly coincides with the era that Held et al.
(1999) refer to as the era of early modern globalization (1500s to mid-19th
century), whereas in Chapter 5, the period covered coincides roughly with
the era of modern globalization (1840s1945 ). That chapter, however, also
addresses the Orthodox churches institutional arrangements and prevailing
trends in the post-1945 era of contemporary globalization or Global Age
(Albrow 1997). Nonetheless, in these chapters, the analysis does not follow
a strict or mechanical chronological order: The impact of modernity on
Orthodoxy has been uneven, and strictly temporal generalizations are highly
problematic. For the purposes of these chapters, the terms modern and
modernity are understood as shorthand expressions that denote the social
transformations that were originally experienced by 19th-century European
societies and that later extended to numerous other non-European contexts
around the globe.
Chapter 4 concentrates on the different historical trajectories of the
Russian and Ottoman empires. The two empires included the majority of
the post-1453 Orthodox population. The chapter addresses both the diver-
gences and convergences between the two different contexts. In the Russian
Empire, Orthodoxy was indigenized until Patriarch Nikons 17th-century
reforms caused a major schism (raskol) within the Church and the formation
of the Old Believers. In the Ottoman Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate
revived the vernacularization that was typical of the earlier Roman Em-
pire. This policy contributed to the cohesiveness of the Ottoman Orthodox
confessional community known as the Rum millet. However, the chapter
also identifies some convergences in the responses of Orthodox institutions
to modernity. State-induced church modernization occurred in both the
post-1721 Russian Empire and the 19th-century Orthodox nation-states
of Southeastern Europe. Additionally, Enlightenment ideas were influential
among Orthodox clergy and scholars. By far, the most influential response
was the 18th-century Mount Athos monastic revival, which was success-
fully transplanted into the Russian Empire and has offered highly visible
and popularized images of Orthodox spirituality. Another instance of such
a transnational uniform religious response to modernity concerns the reli-
gious conservative response to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar.
Chapter 5 examines the nationalization of Orthodoxy. Analyzing the his-
torical encounter and intertwining of Orthodox Christianity and modern
nationalism requires distinguishing between the notion of a state church
(such as, for example, the post-1721 Russian Orthodox Church [ROC]) and
the notion of a national church. National churches are a feature of the mod-
ern era of the nation-state. They claim a unity with the nation as such and
gain leverage, prestige and legitimacy through this association. The chapter
argues that a modern synthesis between church and nation was constructed
in the course of the 19th century in the mostly Orthodox countries of South-
eastern Europe. Of particular importance is the consequence of the modern
synthesis for religious pluralism. Although religious diversity has been tol-
erated, religious pluralismat least in Beckfords (2003) interpretation of
pluralism as a positive social norm or idealhas not been part of the recent
historical past of Southeastern Europe. Next, the postcommunist experience
is analyzed in terms of this model. The chapter argues that postcommunist
developmentsespecially in the former Soviet Unioncan be understood
as the result of ecclesiastical strategies that attempt to (re)assert the church
nation link that constitutes the hallmark of the modern synthesis. In this
manner, the chapter employs the historical analysis of the 19th- and early
20th-century Southeastern Orthodox nations as a template for interpreting
the post-1989 developments. Defending the modern synthesis of church and
nation is the modus operandi of the overwhelming majority of national Or-
thodox churches in the 21st century.
Chapter 6 of this volume complements the previous chapters discussion
on the encounter between modernity and Orthodox Christianity by address-
ing the role of colonialism. Colonialism is a part of Western modernity, but
Orthodox Christianity is generally not considered an institution impacted
by colonial rule. However, there is a historical case in which the boundaries
of an Orthodox church correspond to colonial boundaries, thereby allowing

the interrogation of the relations among Orthodox Christianity, colonialism
and nationalism.16 This is the case of Cyprus, which in 1878 was transferred
from Ottoman control to Great Britain. The chapter analyzes the impli-
cations of British colonial modernity for the Orthodox Church of Cyprus
(OCC) and the manner in which the Church emerged as the key political in-
stitution for popular representation in 20th-century Cyprus. The argument
suggests that the post-1878 reassertion of ecclesiastical authority under the
guise of Greek Cypriot nationalism was an effective strategy pursued by the
hierarchy to preserve their important political role and prestige in the local
society. It was a reaction to a colonial model of externally induced mod-
ernization. The newfound relationship between Church hierarchy and the
people was expressed in the transformation of the archbishops office into a
post of national leadership for the Greek Cypriot political community. This
ethnarchic (e.g., nation-leading) role of the Church came to characterize
Cypruss political life for most of the 20th century. However, it is also im-
portant to point out that this model was quickly dissolved when the islands
political life became sufficiently normalized. The Cypriot ethnarchy was ef-
fectively dismantled after the passing of legendary Archbishop Makarios III
in 1977. By the early 21st century, the Church of Cyprus took further steps
toward the organization of a full synodin effect adjusting its organiza-
tional structure to standard Orthodox practice (Roudometof 2009c).
Chapter 7 of this volume examines the transnationalization of Ortho-
dox Christianity. The migration of various faiths across the globe has been
a major feature of the world throughout the 20th century. One of these
features is the deterritorialization of religion (Martin 2001; Roy 2004)
that is, the appearance and, in some instances, the efflorescence of religious
traditions in places where these previously had been largely unknown or
were at least in a minority position. International migration has provided
the means to theorize the relationship between people and religion in a
transnational context (Casanova 2001; Ebaugh and Chaftez 2002; van der
Veer 2002; Hagan and Ebaugh 2003; Levitt 2003, 2004, 2007). Orthodox
Christianitys conventional form of transnationalism is that of transnational
national communities typically associated with Eastern European immi-
grants and their descendants (Roudometof 2000b). A survey of the immi-
gration patterns suggests that in many Western nations (Australia, Germany
and Canada), numerically significant migration of Orthodox Christians is a
post-World War II phenomenon. Orthodoxy accompanied immigrants from
Southeastern and Eastern Europe into their journeys across the Atlantic and
into the New World in the post-1870 period; hence, it found its way into
North America.
In this chapter, greater attention is placed on the United States, both be-
cause of the relatively long history of Orthodox institutions in this coun-
try and because such institutions had to adjust to a society with a vibrant
religious economy. Still, most U.S.-based Orthodox communities remain
connected to their original mother church. Religious institutions perform

both secular and religious functions in most communities and are impor-
tant agents for the preservation of the ethnic identity of second- and third-
generation immigrants. Chapter 7 focuses on the Greek American community
precisely because it exemplifies these mixed functions of the ecclesiastical
institutions. In the post-1990 period, the rise of an indigenous U.S.-based
Orthodox movement casts doubt on the continuation of these conventional
strategies of ethnic survival and reproduction. The case of the Greek American
community is important because it makes abundantly clear that the reor-
ganization of Orthodox Christianity into a universalistic religion under the
influence of the North American culture of religious pluralism is not an easy
feat. This example is therefore useful for assessing the potential and the dif-
ficulties of such a project.
Thus far, the existence of transnational communities of Orthodox Chris-
tians has been overwhelmingly an experience identical to their experience as
ethnic migrants. By and large, deterritorialized religiosity also has been the
religiosity of these transnational national communities, but the link between
deterritorialized religion and transnational national communities is neither
apparent nor necessary. Chapter 8 of this volume argues in favor of a con-
ceptual distinction between deterritorialization and transnationalism. The
chapter explores the interplay between processes of deterritorialization and
reterritorialization and the condition of globality. Specifically, the chapter
contrasts the reterritorialization of the religious identities brought about by
the 19th-century modern syntheses of church and nation with current alter-
native visions of deterritorialized Orthodox Christianity. To illustrate the
autonomy of this problematic from other issues, the chapter examines the
20032004 dispute between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox
Church of Greece (OCG) as an instance in which the divergent outlooks of
these institutions clashed.
In the final chapter, there is a general summary of the arguments devel-
oped in the volumes chapters, which are framed in terms of answering the
main research questions introduced in this chapter. Furthermore, the dif-
ferent cases examined are synthesized to present a comprehensive analysis
of Orthodox Christianity in the longue dure. The books chapters offer
detailed descriptions of the historical instances of Orthodoxys vernacular-
ization, indigenization, nationalization and transnationalization. These pro-
cesses exemplify the multifaceted entanglements between religion (in this
books case, Orthodox Christianity) and historical globalization. Finally,
based on the evidence presented in the books chapters, there is a critical
overview and assessment of the conventional interpretations of Orthodox
Christianity. In light of the evidence presented, this overview leads to a theo-
retical reassessment of the conceptual terminology capable of capturing Or-
thodoxys historical specificity without projecting stereotypes or totalizing
logic on the faith and its practices.
2 The Fragmentation of Christianity
This chapter focuses on the emergence of a distinct religious tradition of

Christian Orthodoxy in the context of Christianitys fragmentation. The
spread of Christianity was part of a wave of historical globalization that
involved the rise and expansion of world religions across the globe. This
wave entailed both Christianitys spread and its fragmentation. Inevitably,
discussing the emergence of Christian Orthodoxy as a religious tradition
requires a comparison with developments in the western part of the Medi-
terranean. To a degree, the emergence of Roman Catholicism and Ortho-
dox Christianity was shaped by their interactions. Through their contact,
these two branches gained reflexive self-awareness, and in some ways, they
defined themselves through mutual opposition. However, a complete com-
parative historical analysis of this relationship would require a full com-
parative history of Christianity covering nearly a millennium. This is clearly
an impossible task. Hence, for current purposes, attention is focused more
on the historical trajectory of Christianitys Orthodox branch.
This chapters opening section offers a reassessment of the conventional
view of the Eastern religious tradition. Arguing that this view suffers ex-
tensively from the Orientalism of the past, this section spells out a different
vocabulary for historical narration. In line with current perspectives from
historical scholarship and religious history, this vocabulary has not yet pen-
etrated the social sciences. Its use in the historical narratives in this volume
aims to recast the readers view and offer a different perspective on the his-
torical record. As will be shown, the conventional historical benchmark used
to designate the articulation of Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christi-
anitythe Great Schism of 1054does not reflect historical reality. Instead,
the alienation of Christianitys main branches was the result of protracted
ecclesiastical controversies, political conflicts and military conquests.
Two long-term forces shaped Orthodox Christianitys crystallization as
a religious tradition. The first is vernacularization, that is, Christianitys di-
vision on the basis of high culture vernacular languages. In this chapters
second section, there is an outline of the factors underlying the vernaculari-
zation of Christianity in the two parts of the Mediterranean until the turn
of the first millennium. The discussion focuses on the analytically significant
The Fragmentation of Christianity 19
aspects of the division between the two main branches of Christianitythe
Greek East and the Latin West. It is important for the reader to keep in
mind that these terms designate both religious traditions and civilizational
constellations.
The chapters third section focuses on the other major long-term process,
which is Christianitys indigenization. From the eighth century until the fall
of Constantinople in 1204, indigenization entailed the conversion of Slavs
to the Orthodox branch of Christianity. Indigenization persisted through the
centuries, as Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian rulers sought to use ecclesiasti-
cal autocephaly to enhance and legitimize their rule. Both vernacularization
and indigenization provide long-term processes instigated and enacted by a
multitude of actors across historical eras. Recognition of their significance
offers a key to understanding the historical trajectory of the Orthodox re-

ligious tradition. By the ninth century, Christian Orthodoxy had emerged
as a self-aware religious tradition, and there was already a list of religious
differences separating it from emerging Roman Catholicism.
BEYOND THE LEGACY OF ORIENTALISM
For several centuries, Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism did

not form truly distinct branches of Christianity.1 However, to date, narrat-
ing the history of Christianity in the Middle Ages remains confined mostly
to Western Europe (see, for example, Logan 2002). Orthodox Christian-
itys contribution and participation in the history of Europe has been
conventionally cast aside in large part due to the images that prevailed in
past centuries over the role and status of Byzantium (Arnason 2000). The
term Byzantium itself is a relatively recent invention: The inhabitants
of the Byzantine Empire called themselves Romans and they would not
have known themselves as Byzantines (Gregory 2005:1). Hieronymus
Wolf (15161580) first introduced the term Byzantium into scholarship
(Kazhdan 1991a). George Findlays 1853 History of the Byzantine Empire
From 716 to 1057 is reportedly the first English-language book that used the
word Byzantium in its title (Mango [2002] 2006:22). Edward Gibbons
multivolume The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is generally held
responsible for the wide proliferation of Byzantiums negative image among
the English-language public (Gregory 2005:3). To date, no uniformity or
scholarly consensus exists in distinguishing the Roman and Eastern Roman
empires, and there is no specific historical event that can be unambiguously
used to signify such a differentiation. Scholarly periodizations typically re-
flect each authors own perspective (Geanakopoulos [1979] 1993:2426).
Although the historians who used this label were not necessarily nega-
tively predisposed, Byzantiumviewed as a constructhas been used to
foster an image saturated with Orientalist predispositions. Its use for the
purposes of classification reflects a Western perspective that for several
centuries refused to accept the legitimacy of the Eastern Roman Empire. The
term Byzantine has helped to transform this claim into scholarly classifica-
tion. The Eastern Roman Empire was written off, and its place was occu-
pied by a different entityByzantium. From the 19th century forward, the
word Byzantine has assumed its contemporary negative connotation in
English. Its connotation was then connected back to its original region, not
unlike Balkanism in this sense (see Todorova 1997). As a result, the preju-
dices, worldviews and negative images usually referred to as Orientalism
(Said 1978) have tainted scholarship on Orthodox Christianity and Byzan-
tium. These predispositions can be traced back to the ways that Westerners
viewed Byzantines and the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages. [Western
attitudes] were characterized by suspicion, distrust, and a tendency to re-
gard the Byzantines as haughty, dishonest, and not exactly proper Chris-
tians (Gregory 2005:2).
Although no full-fledged historical account of the terms employment can
be offered in this context, the discussion above should offer sufficient evi-
dence of the necessity to free social-scientific terminology from this negative
heritage of the past. In reality, Romania was the Latin term that appeared
in the fourth century AD to designate the Roman Empire (Kazhdan 1991b).
It was later applied to all formerly Roman subjects under the control of
the Arab and, later on, the Ottoman Empires. To this day, the memory of
this identity remains alive in the Mediterranean, as Arabs and Turks refer
to Orthodox Christians as Romans (Rum). This designation can refer to
Orthodox Palestinians or Arabs or people of other nations. Although the
Roman label remained in use, the Arab conquest of the Fertile Crescent
in the seventh century AD forced the Eastern Roman Empire to merge the
ancient Roman heritage with new features: a military government based on
meritocracy and imperial patronage, new rural settlements and a Christian
Greek-speaking society (Herrin 1987:13840). The Eastern Roman Empire
hence acquired new characteristics based on a fusion of Roman, Christian
and Medieval features.
In its contemporary employment in scholarly debate, the use of the term
Byzantium most often signifies this fusion (Whittow 1996:97). To combat
the negative heritage of the term, the term Eastern Roman Empire (instead
of Byzantium) is used throughout this book. Map 2.1 shows the empires
territorial shifts from the reign of Justinian I, prior to the Arab conquest and
up to the era of the Crusades.
Many of the empires neighbors used the word Greek to designate it.
This was a reflection of the empires dominant language and culture, but
this further reinforced stereotypes: To Goths fanning Italians prejudices,
Greeks carried intimations of frippery and rapaciousness (Shepard 2008:5).
Following the establishment of the Carolingian court and its own claim to the
Roman imperial title, Western Europeans employed the term Graeci to refer
to all the inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire (McCormick 2008:397).
For them, the Eastern Roman emperors were emperors of the Greeks,
Map 2.1 The Eastern Roman Empire with border changes between the sixth and 12th centuries
even though, a certain readiness to accept the empires claim to be Roman
surface[d] periodically among Frankish courtiers (Shepard 2008:5). Within
the Greek-speaking universe of the Eastern Mediterranean, however, an-
other redefinition occurred: the term Hellen (which was rendered Greek
in Latin) was gradually redefined to mean pagan (Rapp 2008:138). For
Greek-speaking religious elites, the term had a negative connotation.
The Orientalism of the past is certainly no longer explicit in contempo-
rary scholarship. However, its legacy still clouds the social scientific perspec-
tives on Orthodox Christianity, and its remnants can be readily observed in
the classification system generally in use in North American and Western
European scholarship. In this system, Christianitys broad division is be-
tween Western (Protestant and Roman Catholic) and Eastern Christianity.
Eastern Christianity is typically subdivided into the (Eastern) Oriental (also

called non-Chalcedonian) churches and the (Eastern) Orthodox churches.
This classification is but a retrospective interpretation that does not cor-
respond to the chronological succession of the divisions experienced within
Christianity, but it groups together two different families of churches (the
Eastern churches) that experienced a split long before the Great Schism
of 1054 between Orthodox and Catholics. After the Council of Chalcedon
(451 AD) introduced the formula of Christ having two natures united yet
completely distinct, a group of churches that did not accept the councils
formula broke away to form the non-Chalcedonian churchesincluding the
Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian and Ethiopian Churches (Zernov 1963:6465;
Esposito, Fasching, and Lewis 2008:5254). Some of them did not partici-
pate in that council or even in earlier councils. In this regard, Chalcedon
was important in terms of self-definition: the Chalcedonian churches started
using the term Orthodox (literally meaning the correct doctrine) to des-
ignate themselves (Clendenin [1994] 2002:3437; McGuckin 2008:1820).
For both Catholics and Orthodox Christians, their Declaration of the Faith
states that they believe in a single Orthodox (i.e., correct) and Catholic
(that is, universal) Church. This common reality of a single universal Chris-
tian Church lasted for several centuries.
It was only several centuries later that the Chalcedonian churches di-
vided once more into Roman Catholics and Orthodox, whereby the terms
Catholic and Orthodox gradually came to indicate specific branches of
Christianity. To date, the Roman Catholic Church lays an equal claim to the
term Orthodox, just as the Orthodox Church lays an equal claim to the term
Catholic. The Orthodox Churchs full title is the Holy Orthodox Catholic
Apostolic church (of the East). However, to avoid unnecessary confusion
and in accordance with the conventions in the literature, the choice made
here is to employ the less wordy term Orthodox Church (Ware 1964:16;
Clendenin [1994] 2002:30).
Most often, the general classification system currently used in the social
sciences lumps together all the Eastern churches, which are set against
the Western ones. The system thus contributes to making Orthodox
Christianity appear exotic by explicitly using a label (Eastern) that marks
its exclusion from the West, with all of the traditional negative implica-
tions. This is the case for the Eastern Oriental (that is, non-Chalcedonian)
churches as well. To avoid the biases of this classification, the phrase Or-
thodox Christianity is used throughout this book. From the Council of
Chalcedon (451 AD) until the gradual alienation between the two parts of
the Mediterranean world, a single Chalcedonian Orthodoxy was set against
the heretical non-Chalcedonian churches of the Eastern Mediterranean
(as well as other minor groups); Orthodoxy did not imply religious con-
servatism or traditionalismas often assumed due to the words contem-
porary connotationbut the sole correct Christian faith (Clendenin [1994]
2002:31). Chalcedonian Orthodoxy was a form of religious universalism
bent on preserving the universal and correct Christian faith.

The precise content as well as the administrative arrangements of this
faith became contested with the division between Orthodox Christianity
and Roman Catholicism. Thus, the terms Orthodox and Catholic to desig-
nate these two branches of Christianity are the product of historical progres-
sion and of conventions. The Great Schism of 1054 AD is the conventional
symbolic demarcation point for Christianitys division into Roman Catho-
licism and Orthodox Christianity; it entailed the condemnation of Patriarch
Michael Cerularius and all who followed him by the papal delegates in
Constantinople (Pelikan 1977:147; Geanakopoulos [1979] 1993:36870;
Chadwick 2003:20618). Afterward, the patriarchs synod responded in
kind by excommunicating the papal delegates (Harris [2003] 2007:45). Be-
cause the papal see was vacant at the time, this action was unauthorized.
The condemnations were never endorsed or revoked by an ecumenical coun-
cil or papal decision. Contemporaries did not attribute to that event the sig-
nificance that is attributed to it today (Papadakis [1994] 2003:112). Contact
between Catholic and Orthodox monastic orders continued, and Roman
Catholic churches in Constantinople were not disrupted (Kolbaba 2010).
Therefore, 1054 is a post hoc convenient historical benchmark.2 Nonethe-
less, it was only in 1965 that the pope and ecumenical patriarch alike cast
aside these condemnations. However, as the historical record shows, the
correspondence and communication between the two sides was not dis-
rupted. Rather, the events of 105354 were more symptomatic of a state of
mind than a primary cause (Chadwick 2003:218).
The actual rift between the Greek East and Latin West has been the result
of a long-term process shaped by historical events other than those of 1054.
A word of clarification is required here to explain these terms. Because of
the historical significance of the Greek letters in the Orthodox ecclesiastical
tradition (as illustrated in the Bible and in liturgical language, the language
of the Church fathers, etc.), Roman Catholic sources during the Middle
Ages and even later on used to refer to Eastern Orthodox Christianity as the
Greek rite. Similarly, Orthodox Christians in the Eastern Mediterranean
used to refer to Roman Catholicism as the Latin rite (Romanides 1975;
Sherrard 1992). For centuries, the terms used for the designation of Ortho-
dox and Catholics were Greek and Latin, respectively; these indicated
the specific liturgical language and reflected broader differences between the
two parts of the Mediterranean. Hence, the shorthand expressions Latin
West and Greek East came to signify the broader civilizational constella-
tions of the two parts of the Mediterranean.3 To date, these expressions are
part of historians vocabulary. Although these terms are employed in the
following discussion, the reader should bear in mind that they refer to pre-
Reformation Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic cultural contexts
alone. These terms should not be construed or misinterpreted as identical to
what in contemporary discussions is referred to as the West or non-West.
VERNACULARIZATION EAST AND WEST
As Therborn (2000:160) argues, vernacularization involved the rise of differ-

ent vernacular high-culture languages with their own script. Even before the
rise of Christianity, Greek and Latin were high-culture languages in the east-
ern and western parts of the Mediterranean. After the spread of Christian-
ity, their status as vernacular high-culture script languages further amplified
cultural differences that became encoded in religious categories. As a result
of specific institutional, historical and cultural factors, Christianity was ver-
nacularized differently in the two parts of the Mediterranean. A full account
is not possible within the present scope restrictions and space constraints of
this volume. As a result, for this books purposes, greater emphasis is placed
on Christianitys vernacularization in the Eastern Mediterranean.
When Christianity became the Roman Empires official religion in the
fourth century, complementarity provided the basic principle of governing
the relationship between state and religious leadership. Justinians Sixth No-
vella (quoted in Chapter 1) offers a paradigmatic statement. This notion
persisted over time and was reaffirmed in the ninth-century legal revision
issued under Emperor Basil I under the name Epanagoge:
The task of the Emperor is to safeguard and secure the strength of the
nation by good governance, to restore the strength when it is impaired
through watchful care, and to obtain new strength by wisdom and by
just ways and deeds. The aim of the patriarch is . . . to preserve in piety
and purity of life those people whom he has received from God. . . . The
aim of the Patriarch is the salvation of the souls entrusted to him. . . . It
is for the emperor to support, first, all that is written in Holy Scripture,
then all dogmas established by the Seven Holy Councils, and also se-
lected Roman laws (quoted in Gvosdev 2001:8586).
As the above quote shows, the ecclesiastical establishment assisted the

emperor in the execution of his duties. The high clergy provided spiritual
leadership and exercised moral control over state authority, whereas the
Emperor was expected to play a role in protecting, expanding and serv-
ing Christianity. In his praise of Emperor Constantine I, Bishop Eusebius
of Caesarea expressed this principle succinctly: Constantine I was praised
because he succeeded in exterminating polyarchy at the political level and
polytheism at the religious level. From that point on, the Roman Empire,
having united all peoples under its power, would reclaim its central stage in
ecumene and spread the Christian message according to divine providence
and power (Gvosdev 2001:3947; Shepard 2008:6; Makrides 2009:64).
This sentiment was codified in the hymn of Cassia the Nun. On Christmas
day, this hymn was sung in churches and stated the following:
When Augustus reigned alone upon earth, the many kingdoms of men
came to end; and when Thou was made man of the pure Virgin, the
many gods of idolatry were destroyed. The cities of the world passed
under one single rule, and the nations came to believe in one sovereign
Godhead. The peoples were enrolled by decree of Cesar; and we, the
faithful, were enrolled in the Name of Godhead, when Thou, our God,
was made man. Great is Thy mercy; glory to Thee.4
Ideally, the ecumene should embrace the entire world; yet precisely be-
cause this notion functioned ideologically, practical curtailment of imperial
rule did not invalidate the notion as such (Gvosdev 2001:50). The ideal
persisted, and if it fell short of being realized this was attributed to human
weakness.
The Greek word basileus gradually came to replace the Latin imperator,
and it was officially used beginning in 629, whereby the Roman emperor
was king [basileus] and emperor of the Romans (McCormick 2008:409).
In the Eastern Roman worldview, basileus was Gods vicar on earth (Harris
[2003] 2007:13; Shepard 2008). This complementary relationship did not
imply confusion between the different realms. Conventionally, complemen-
tarity has been misconstrued as caesaropapism, or the secular rulers undue
intervention into the affairs of the Church (Weber [1922] 1968). This inter-
pretation is predicated on the modern division between a secular and a
religious sphere. Only from within this framework is it possible to deem
that a political leaders actions violate the separation of the realms. How-
ever, for the Christian Roman Empire, the understanding of the relationship
between the religious order and the state was vastly different. The emperors
were the guardians of the faith, and consequently, they were empowered
to intervene in religious affairs. The emperors exercised this authority in
full. Between 379 and 1451, 36 of the 122 patriarchs of Constantinople
were forced into retirement under imperial pressure (Meyendorff [1982]
1990:20).5 Imperial authority was limited by the rulers religious adherence
and the successful performance of his role as well as by his continuing obser-
vance of the correct faith. When imperial authority resorted to coercion,
the result was protracted controversysuch as with the Iconoclast contro-
versy (726843) and later with the failed attempts at union with Rome.
Both instances are discussed in this and the following chapters.
For centuries, the Eastern Roman Empire was a paradigmatic case of
this mutual agreement (symphonia) between Christianity and the state
(Mango 1980). Between the sixth and 11th centuries, imperial author-
ity contributed extensively to the prestige of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
(Meyendorff [1982] 1990:25). Being the legitimate heirs of Rome made the
Eastern Romans feel superior to other peoples and reluctant to confer the
title of basileus to other rulerssuch as Bulgarian Tsar Symeon, the Frankish
King Charlemagne, the Saxon ruler Otto I or the Grand Prince of Moscow,
Vasilij I.6 In the empires hierarchical order, the emperor reigned supreme
as the father of all other rulers (Gvosdev 2001:4445; Angold 2003:29;

McCormick 2008:409). Recognition of this symbolic order was one of the
main long-term objectives of the empires foreign relations and diplomacy
(Harris [2003] 2007).
The alienation between the two parts of the Mediterranean took several
centuries to develop; from time to time, differences emerged regarding vari-
ous ecclesiastical or political affairs, for religion and politics were deeply
intertwined (Herrin 1987; Chadwick 2003). Christianity was vernacular-
ized in a manner that exacerbated cultural differences; a list of such diffe-
rences appears in Table 2.1.
There were two main factors that contributed heavily to this result. The
first factor concerned the difference in the number of patriarchs in the two
parts of the Mediterranean and the institutional context in which ecclesiasti-
cal authorities were forced to operate. Whereas the pope was a single patri-
arch in the West, the existence of four patriarchs in the East made it more
congruent to think in terms of conciliarity. In the West, the collapse of the
Western Roman Empire in 476 allowed the pope to appropriate the formerly
imperial title of pontifex maximus and to articulate the notion of a divinely
sanctioned apostolic see. Although only the pope could successfully claim
Table 2.1 The vernacularization of Chalcedonian Christianity
Eastern Mediterranean Western Mediterranean
Multiple high primates Single high primate (the pope)

Conciliarity (all bishops are equal; Hierarchal organization (notion of
decision making by consensus in apostolic see)
ecumenical councils)
Complementarity/symphonia with The Papacy as ultimate ecclesiastical
the emperor, division of labor and political arbitrator
Greek as predominant vernacular Latin as predominant vernacular
Numerous Christological disputes Absence of major Christological disputes
such an apostolic see in the West, there were dozens of cities in the East that
could make a similar claim (Meyendorff [1982] 1990:103, 274, 305). As a
result, the notion of an apostolic see never developed in the East.
Moreover, unlike the pope, the patriarchs of the East had to contend
with a powerful political authority that played a key role in ecclesiastical
affairs. The original symphonia between the Roman emperor and Chris-
tianitys high clergy involved a conception of ecclesiastical governance by
the so-called pentarchythe participation of the five original or ancient pa-
triarchates of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.
To be acceptable, ecumenical church councils required the participation of
these patriarchs or their representatives. From the imperial point of view,
which subsequently also became the Orthodox viewpoint, the bishop of
Rome was primus inter pares (first amongst equals). Pope Leo the Great
(440461) protested against this interpretation in the Council of Chalcedon
(Clendenin [1994] 2002:99).7 The Papacy considered its status as deriving
from St. Peter, the first among the apostles and first bishop of Rome. In due
course of time, the Papacy developed the Petrine claim to primacy, namely,
the notion that as St. Peters successor, the pope held a position above other
bishops, who should yield to his authority. This claim was more forcefully
expressed after the eighth century as northern European and Frankish con-
verts to Christianity offered strong support for the cult of St. Peter to de-
velop (Herrin 1987:105). Over time, attitudes shaped practices, and in turn
these practices shaped each sides ecclesiology. The two sides divergences
were manifested in Romes refusal to recognize the 102 rules and regula-
tions instituted in the 691692 Council in Trullo as most rules were heav-
ily in favor of the customs of the East and in conscious opposition to the
customs of the West (Herrin 1987:25090; Chadwick 2003:6670; Louth
2007:3033). From that point forward, mutual recognition of the councils
became problematic.8 However, divergences in liturgical practices and dif-
ferences in customs were initially deemed acceptable.
As a result of the above-mentioned factors, the Latin West came to think
in terms of a single universal authority. This divergence between the two
sides in the conception of churchstate relations might be summed up as
follows: whereas in the East, a plurality of ecclesiastical institutions related
to a single universal empire, in the West, a plurality of feudal states and
rulers stood related to a single ecclesiastical authority (Gvosdev 2001:4).
This difference was consequential in the way in which ecclesiastical institu-
tions related to each other. In the Council of Chalcedon, the patriarch of
Constantinople was elevated to second in order of seniority after Romes
bishop. This was meant to offer the new capitals bishop a comparable sta-
tus, but the bishop of New Rome and Constantinople (as it was officially
called) was and still is primus inter pares. The word ecumenical did not
and still does not mean universal but only superior bishop (Papadakis
1991); for the Eastern Roman Emperor ruled over the entire ecumene
which was a concept similar to those of Western Christendom or the
House of Islam (Harris [2003] 2007). Hence, the adjective ecumeni-
cal was a means of identifying the symphonia between the empire and the
ecclesiastical hierarchy (Gvosdev 2001:87). It was a central component of
the empires self-image.9 Nonetheless, in Orthodox ecclesiology, no bishop
has universal authority. That is, no bishop can settle disputes over doctrine
or pronounce doctrinal decisions unilaterally. Decisions on these issues can
be settled only in ecumenical councils with the participation of patriarchs or
their representatives.
Hence, the Greek East acknowledged Romes seniority but did not rec-
ognize the pope as primatus potestatis. The correspondence between Pope
Innocent III (11981216) and Patriarch John X Kamateros (11981206) is
instructive: Papal claims to primacy are rejected as is the notion that Rome
enjoys a special status vis--vis other churches because of the legacy of

St. Peter, the first among the apostles. The patriarch stated the Orthodox
view: that is, Peter is the rock of all of the Church, not just the Church of
Rome; Christian unity is a matter of doctrine and not a matter of adherence
to the pope; and finally, Romes prime status is derived from its status as
former imperial capital (Angold 2003:39).
Irrespective of the above, until the seventh century, both sides were
united against their shared heretical adversaries.10 After the sixth-century
Arab conquest of the Fertile Crescent, finding common ground with non-
Chalcedonian Christians emerged as an important geopolitical objective for
the Eastern Roman Emperors (Zernov 1963:8284; Herrin 1987:192219).
In the past, the emperors had persecuted the non-Chalcedonians. Arab rule
offered them a degree of protection. In the sixth and seventh centuries,
monotheletism and monoergism represented two lighter versions of non-
Chalcedonian theology. At different points, these were offered imperial sup-
port with the long-term objective that this might win back the allegiance
of the non-Chalcedonians under Arab rule. The Papacy participated exten-
sively in these ecclesiastical affairs and played an important role in preserv-
ing Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and in defeating such overtures.
The second major difference concerned each sides cultural milieu.
The East was shaped by the fusion between Christianity and the regions
Hellenistic cultural tradition (Geanakopoulos [1979] 1993). The over-
whelming majority of Christological disputes appeared in the eastern part
of the Mediterranean. This was the direct consequence of a vibrant philo-
sophical tradition inspired by ancient Greek philosophy. Unsurprisingly, Or-
thodoxy (i.e., upholding the correct doctrine) became the Easts paramount
concern. In contrast, administrative unity was never formalized. The ecu-
menical patriarch enjoyed a privileged position vis--vis the other Orthodox
patriarchs by virtue of his close association with the imperial government;
for in the Eastern Roman worldview, the Empires realm was that of the
ecumene (Harris [2003] 2007:13). In turn, the patriarchs under Arab rule
were sufficiently marginalized to be content with that arrangement. After
all, protection of the Holy Lands was an imperial responsibility: in 1027, a
treaty with the Islamic caliphate provided for the rebuilding of the Church
of the Resurrection (i.e., Holy Sepulchre) in Jerusalem and permitted the
emperor to designate the Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem (Harris [2003]
2007:24). In return, Muslim prisoners were released, and a promise was
made to repair Constantinoples mosque. Similarly, by the 11th century, the
patriarch of Antioch was an imperial appointee.
The Easts complementary relationship between church and emperor
stood in sharp contrast to the Roman Catholic Churchs policy, especially
after the 10th-century Gregorian reform effort. The crystallization of the
papal monarchy (Zernov 1963:97101; Morris [1989] 2001) entailed
the standardization of numerous religious practices, but it also involved the
initiation of and involvement in the Crusades and the attempt to remove
secular control over religious estates, which caused the famous Investiture
Controversy. The controversy concerned the authority of feudal overlords

to offer themselves the right of possession of fields to bishops and was
expressed with symbolic acts in the bishops coronation (Geanakopoulos
[1979] 1993:27279; Morris [1989] 2001; Clendenin [1994] 2002:41;
Papadakis [1994] 2003:4477). The Catholic Churchs efforts to regain ad-
ministrative control over the high clergy contributed to a policy orienta-
tion completely at odds with the Orthodox Easts traditional policy. In turn,
in the Orthodox Easts view, the pope exercised political privileges in the
West (Angold 2003:29) similar to those of the emperor; hence, it seemed
that the pope was usurping imperial authority.
The iconoclast controversy was a major factor that shaped the notion
of Christian Orthodoxy and signaled the increasing distance of the Papacy
from the Greek East. Iconoclasm condemned the practice of honoring icons
as idolatrous and contrary to Christianitys monotheism. As a movement, it
registered the influence of Islams rigorous monotheism. Its official support
and promulgation by Eastern Roman emperors caused an extensive contro-
versy that lasted over a century (726843). The Papacys support against
iconoclasmwhich for a long time was official imperial policycaused
the Eastern Roman emperor to remove the dioceses of Illyricum, Calabria
and Sicily from papal jurisdiction (Herrin 1987:34958, 370; Chadwick
2003:76).
However, Lombard assaults weakened imperial authority on Italian soil,
and by 751, the Lombards captured Ravenna, the seat of the Roman exarch.
Until that era, the Papacy had remained under the influence of Eastern eccle-
siastical personnel (monks, bishops, pilgrims) (McCormick 2008:41012).
Afterwards, the Papacy sought the political support of the Frankish rulers,
who were asserting their authority in the western part of the Mediterranean.
The Carolingian dynasty in particular developed strong ties with the Pa-
pacy, and the alliance between the two altered the Papacys traditional ori-
entation. Crowning Charlemagne in 800 as Roman emperor was a facet of
this involvement (Herrin 1987:379460; Geanakopoulos [1979] 1993:105;
Chadwick 2003:8487). Calling Charlemagne Roman Emperor and Au-
gustus challenged the universality of the Eastern Roman Emperor.11 This
reorientation of the Papacy also entailed a shift in attitude toward the East.
The ancient Roman heritage was viewed as safeguarded by Roman Catho-
licism in the West. Westerners referred to the Holy German emperors as Em-
perors of the Romans, whereas the Eastern Roman emperors were called
Emperors of the Greeks. It was within the broader context of this political
realignment that the papal court (Curia) concocted the so-called Donation
of Constantinea powerful forgery, according to which Emperor Constan-
tine I, prior to becoming a Christian, surrendered his authority to Pope
Sylvester I (314335), who returned it while retaining preeminence over the
other patriarchates (Tyerman [2006] 2007:5; MacCulloch 2009:351). This
forgery formed one basis for later papal claims and was considered authen-
tic until the 15th century.
In the East, the final resolution of the iconoclast controversy became the
occasion for the consolidation of Christian Orthodoxy. In 843, after the sec-
ond and final restoration of the icons, the Church constructed the Synodikon
of Orthodoxy. This was a collection of documents containing the decisions
of the eastern traditions ecumenical councils (Louth 2006:17). Organizing
and at times updating the Synodikon became a means of consolidating and
updating this tradition.12 The Synodikon was concerned with Christological
matters, and its formulation registers a growing self-awareness of a distinct
religious tradition. Although not all of the elements currently recognized as
indispensable components of Orthodox Christianity were present, there was
already an awareness of difference from the Latin West. In many respects,
a similar development is also observed in the West. Christian Orthodoxy
might be viewed as the cornerstone on which Orthodox Christianity was
subsequently constructed.
THE INDIGENIZATION OF CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY
The EastWest contest also was political. Conversion of non-Christians to

the Eastern or Western forms of Christianity entailed the growth of each
sides sphere of influence: to accept baptism from subjects of the Eastern
Roman Emperor was tantamount to acknowledgement of the emperors
sovereignty (Chadwick 2003:110, 170). It is instructive that the Bulgar-
ian conversion to Orthodox Christianity in 864865 was the consequence
of an imperial military campaign combined with the effects of famine and
drought (Ivanov 2008:318). In fact, missionary activity in its own right does
not seem to have been the principal factor; instead, the conversion pro-
vided a tangible means for the Roman emperor to secure the Bulgarians
allegiance and acknowledgment of his status. For example, when Catholic
missionaries were invited to Bulgaria in 866, it caused a negative response in
Constantinople (Pelikan 1977:18384; McCormick 2008:421).
The conversion of the Slavs to Christianity offers the historical context
for the initialization of a long-term process that entailed the indigeniza-
tion of Orthodoxy. Certainly, all world religions have experienced, at least
to some degree, processes of indigenization. Nonetheless, the propensity
and ability of different faiths to successfully undergo such a process vary
widely. The experience of Christianity in the Eastern Mediterranean led to
extensive indigenizationwith several non-Chalcedonian Churches (Arme-
nians, Copts, etc.) forming over time. Table 2.2 offers a list of these various
indigenizations.
For this chapters purposes, however, attention is focused more on the
indigenizations of the Chalcedonian Christianity in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean. This Chalcedonian Christianitywhich in the previous section has
also been described as Christian Orthodoxyhas been quite susceptible
to such processes. In large part, this has resulted from two sets of prac-
tices. First, the established principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly for regions
that constitute politically independent units connected state authority and

ecclesiastical autocephaly from early on. Serb, Bulgarian and Russian rul-
ers were offered such autocephaly as a part of their state building efforts
and promptly proceeded to capitalize on this opportunity to construct auto-
cephalous churches. This autocephaly became a real or imagined depository
of ethnic difference and was seized upon in the 19th and 20th centuries as
part of the Eastern European nations process of nation building. This pro-
cess will be discussed in Chapter 5 of this volume. Most often, autocephaly
instead of full recognition of patriarchal authority was offered to political
leaders whose goal was to bolster their own authority by constructing an
ecclesiastical administration under their auspices.
Second, Orthodoxy has been willing to accept the use of different lang-
uages in liturgy for the purposes of conversion and in accordance with a
regions dominant language. Although Latin remained for centuries Catho-
licisms liturgical language, the language of the Eastern Orthodox Church
ecclesiastical Greekdid not occupy a similar status. In Syria and Palestine,
Aramaic or Syrian was used in liturgy, whereas the Orthodox Church of
Georgia used (Old) Georgian in its church services.13 Therefore, in the
Orthodox tradition, no sacred language per se ever existed (Gvosdev
2001:12425). The dominance of the Greek language in services in the East
Table 2.2 Indigenizations of Christianity in the Eastern Mediterranean (3001589 AD)
Chalcedonian Churches Non-Chalcedonian Churches
Bulgarian autocephalous Church Armenian Church

(Patriarchate, 1242)
Serbian autocephalous Church Ethiopian Church
(Patriarchate, 1375)
Russian Orthodox Church The Church of the East (Nestorians)
(Patriarchate,1589)
Georgian Orthodox Church The Coptic Church
Assyrian Orthodox Church Maronite Church
was a reflection of that regions Hellenistic culture and the fact that, after
the seventh century, Greek was the main language used throughout the em-
pire. Although the above-mentioned instances demonstrate Orthodoxys
propensity to indigenization, the conversion of the Slavs to the Orthodox
form of Christianity has been perhaps the most consequential of all the cases
of indigenization.14
The legendary mission of Constantine (later Cyril) and Michael (later
Methodius) is conventionally cited as the key historical event for the trans-
lation of the Gospel into Old Slavonic and the construction of the Cyrillic
script. Nonetheless, their Moravian mission of 863 was a complete failure.
After their followers were expelled from Moravia, by the 880s, Bulgarian
ruler Boris invited them to settle in his territory. Boriss reasons were prag-
matic: Greek-speaking clergy did not know Slavonic; therefore, training the
local clergy reduced their reliance on Constantinople (Ivanov 2008:316
20). Translation of the Gospel into Old Slavonic was a major strategy for
facilitating the absorption of Orthodox Christianity into the tradition of the
South Slavs. Old Slavonic became the foundation of a literary tradition that
further contributed to the creation and reproduction of ethnic difference
(Picchio 1980; Meyendorff [1981] 1988:44).
The application of these practices varied widely depending on the specif-
ics of each of the three historical cases: Serb, Bulgarian and Russian. Because
the Serb case came after 1204, it is discussed in the following chapter. The
Serb case followed the Bulgarian and Russian precedents. The Russian indi-
genization of Orthodoxy was slow. Although sources refer to baptisms con-
ducted in the 860s, the conventional historical benchmark is the baptisms
and Christianization of the Russ under Prince Vladimir in 988although
this is based solely on Russian sources without corroboration by Greek-
language sources (Meyendorff [1981] 1988:2627; Ivanov 2008:325). The
first evidence of a Russ metropolitan dates from 1039. In 1037, Prince Ja-
roslav erected the St. Sophia cathedral in Kievmodeled after Constantino-
ples cathedraland appointed the first Russian metropolitan (Meyendorff
[1981] 1988:40). These actions were most likely prompted by his designs to
gain the title of king.
Early sources refer to Christianity as such and not to Orthodoxy (pravo-
slavnyi) in particular (van den Bercken 1999:52:57). Initially, Rome was
included among those lands that were part of Christianity, something
actually quite reasonable for the standards of the era. The Eastern Roman
influence was decisive, especially in personnel selection: of the 24 metropoli-
tans between 988 and the 1240 Mongol invasion, only two were natives.15
It is only after the sack of Constantinople in 1204 that an anti-Western
element enters into the Russian perspective. However, only a few decades
later, the Russian principalities succumbed to the Mongol conquest. By
1240, Kiev itself had fallen to the Mongols of the Golden Horde. The re-
sult of the Mongol conquest was the gradual decline of Kiev and a period
of division among rival principalities. Independent Russian principalities
were squeezed between the Mongols and the German Order of the Teutonic
Knights. The latters Crusade into Livdandia was halted in a defeat by the
forces of the legendary Russian prince Alexander Nevksij in 1242 (Meyen-
dorff [1981] 1988:8688; van den Bercken 1999:123).16 Nevskij later be-
came a symbol of Russian Orthodoxy, and the ROC canonized him in 1546.
He rejected papal initiatives to side with the Western powers against the
Tatars. His choice was similar to that of the Eastern Roman Empires anti-
Union Orthodox constituency, which will be discussed in the next chapter
of this volume. Thus, in addition to increasing anti-Western attitudes in Or-
thodox lands, which were provoked by news of the sack of Constantinople
in 1204 AD, there were additional local factors contributing to increased
tensions with Catholicism. In the 13th and 14th centuries, Orthodox and
Catholics competed for the baptism of the Lithuanian princes, while the
Papacy supported military inroads into Russian lands. By 1368, the pope
offered absolution of sins for those fighting against the Russians, indirectly
subsuming the Russians with non-Christians and schismatics (Meyendorff
[1981] 1988:90102). This turn of events reflects the post-1204 realities,
which are discussed further in Chapter 3 of this volume.
More immediate and consequential was the Bulgarian case. Although
Catholic missionaries were invited to the Bulgarian court, in the end, its
rulers chose the Orthodox rite (Chadwick 2003:110). This pattern of invit-
ing delegates from both Constantinople and Rome and bargaining to gain
autocephaly is repeatedly observed and reflects the desire of various rulers
to negotiate a more satisfactory political settlement. Bulgarian rulers pre-
sented a formidable challenge to Eastern Roman authority in the Balkans.
Under Tsar Symeon (893927), the first Bulgarian empire spread over
most of the Balkans. Symeon aimed to claimby means of marriage
the title of emperor of Romans and Bulgarians, but his plans never suc-
ceeded. In 925, he proclaimed himself king and emperor of Bulgarians and
Romans (Wolff [1949] 2007:270), but his title was never recognized. In
927, his successor, Peter, was offered the title of king of Bulgarians (but
not that of Romans). Under Symeon, the use of (Old) Slavonic liturgical
language was generalized throughout the Church, with attention given to
translating ecclesiastical works from Greek (Gonis 2001:3238). Several
claims have been made regarding the construction of a Patriarchate or arch-
bishopric under Symeon. What is definitely recognized, nonetheless, is that
under his successor Peter (927969), a local archbishopric was established.
However, by 1018, Emperor Basil II was successful in crushing the
Bulgarian state. In effect, that was the end of that archbishopric. Subse-
quently, the archbishopric of Ohrid was revamped and assumed jurisdiction
over the Bulgarian landswhich in 11th- and 12th-century terminology
included the central Balkans (i.e., the contemporary region of Macedonia)
(Angold 1995:15862; Gonis 2001:4849; Papadakis [1994] 2003:36469;
Wolff [1949] 2007:17380). Its autocephalous status was justified on the
basis of its authority over Bulgaria. Still, because its status was granted
by the emperor, the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not recognize it. This
prompted local authorities to revive a factually incorrect claim of the see
as successor of a see originally founded by Emperor Justinian in 553. Local
archbishops used the title Archbishops of First Justinian and Bulgaria, al-
though many of them were not of Bulgarian origin, and the sees population
did not consist exclusively of ethnic Bulgarians. The archbishopric represents
an acknowledgement of the importance of religious authority for imperial
rule. Its existence has provided a major cultural benchmark in the history
of the South Slavs; and in modern national histories, it sometimes features
prominently as a depository of the South Slavs cultural identity. However,
its actual role for the indigenization of Orthodoxy is rather doubtful.
RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS AND

CIVILIZATIONAL CONSTELLATIONS
This chapter conducted an overview of the fragmentation of Christianity as

the faith spread across Europe and the Mediterranean. Additionally, atten-
tion has been focused on the fragmentation of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy,
which constituted the overwhelming majority of the Christianswithout
an attempt to include non-Chalcedonian Christians. Within these broad
scope restrictions, this chapters narrative has stressed the significance of
two major processes: vernacularization and indigenization represent two
central processes that are intimately connected to the fragmentation of
Christianity.
Vernacularization contributed to the construction of distinct language-
based high cultures in the two parts of the Mediterraneanand the subse-
quent creation of distinct spheres of influence marked by languages, cultural
habits, customs and practices. The use of the two main vernacular high-
culture languages of the eraGreek and Latinis responsible for the con-
struction of the two religious traditions that have become embedded in the
terms Greek East and Latin West. As explained in this chapters opening
section, this inquiry must come to terms with the negative image of Byzan-
tium, which has been deconstructed in the course of this chapters discussion.
Instead, the term Eastern Roman Empire is used throughout this volume.
Although both the Greek East and Latin West were united in their advocacy
of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, their divergences over time suggest the inevi-
table formation of two distinct traditions: By the ninth century, Christian
Orthodoxy was a self-aware religious tradition with increasing differences
from the Latin-based or Roman Catholic religious tradition. Use of the term
Christian Orthodoxy is meant to highlight the extent to which this branch
of Christianity had achieved a level of self-awareness and distinction, but it
also suggests historical change and fluidity. Christian Orthodoxy is not yet
Orthodox Christianity. It would take at least another five centuries for that
to occur.
Indigenization added an important component that further increased
the difference between Christian Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Un-
like Latin, Greek did not maintain its status as a sacred language. The con-
struction of the Cyrillic script and the subsequent development of Slavonic
literary production contributed to the dissolution of the link between Chris-
tianity and a single liturgical language. Orthodoxys indigenization also
meant that autocephalous ecclesiastical institutions could be constructed in
accordance with the will of political regimes. This strategy is quite differ-
ent from the Roman Catholic premise of centralized ecclesiastical authority.
The chapter also addressed the issue of the conversion of Bulgarians and
Russians. However, indigenization never came to a halt; it continued in later
centuries as Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian rulers sought to use ecclesiasti-
cal autocephaly to enhance and legitimize their rule. These early processes
of ethnic indigenization should not be misconstrued as direct predecessors
of Orthodoxys nationalization. As Chapter 5 of this volume will argue, that
synthesis is a 19th-century phenomenon. Instead, claiming the imperial title
was an important symbolic strategy, and gaining recognition of autocephaly
or autonomy was another major component. However, the two Bulgarian
empires or the Russian Duchy were not nation-states. Instead, these were
ruled by divine monarchs, and it is for this reason that control over the
ecclesiastical apparatus was an issue of paramount concern. In the modern
era, the historical legacy of these efforts has been promptly exploited in
local processes of nation formation and has been incorporated into national
mythologies whereby these states are viewed as antecedents of modern-day
statehood.
The crystallization of distinct religious traditions must be considered
within the context of the broader civilizational constellations in the two parts
of the Mediterranean. That is, the Greek East was for a long period of time
coterminous with the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) civilization, whereas in
the western part of the Mediterranean, the Latin West slowly emerged and
became under Roman Catholicism the originator of the post-1500 trans-
Atlantic civilization conventionally referred to as the West. However, during
the European Middle Ages, the Latin West was a civilization still construct-
ing its foundations. Roman Catholicism was shaped decisively by this pro-
cess. The difference between the two civilizations worldviews is enshrined in
the terms used to denote their own cultural universe: The Eastern Romans
ecumene contrasts with the Western Christendom (which meant the pre-
Reformation Roman Catholic Christian lands).17 The growing rift between
Latin West and Greek East was extensively impacted by the fact that after
the eighth century, the consolidation of European feudalism (Bloch 1961)
contributed to the Papacys changing attitude vis--vis the East.
By the early ninth century, there was already a short list of EastWest dif-
ferences that had become contested. These involved the use of unleavened
bread in liturgy, the Filioque, the administration of sacraments of confirma-
tion and the lower clergys celibacy.18 Of the above, the Filioque became the
focal point of controversy. Its story illustrates the decisive role of Western
elites in the division of Christianity. The term Filioque comes from two
Latin words: Filio que (and from the Son), which indicates a difference
between the Catholic and Orthodox Creed. The Catholic formulation is
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son in con-
trast to the Orthodox formulation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father. In all likelihood, the difference results from a sixth-century tactical
translation error meant to assist with the proselytism of the Visigoths in
Spain (Zernov 1963:8990; Papadakis [1994] 2003:34547). It was du-
plicated as Christianity spread in France and Britain. Initially, Pope Leo III
(795816) refused to include it in liturgy, but the Carolingian court sup-
ported the Filioque and used it as a means of solidifying their alliance with
the Papacy (Chadwick 2003:8898). Pope Benedict VIII (10121024) even-

tually sanctioned the interpretation, which was subsequently absorbed into
Catholicism (for an Orthodox theological view, see Pelikan 1977:18398).
The Filioque illustrates the manner in which religious texts can be reinter-
preted as a means of redefining and offering legitimacy and cohesion to
rising civilizations.
In the mid-ninth century, the Photean schism provided the occasion to
articulate these emerging differences. It is named after Patriarch Photeus
(Zernov 1963:9394; Geanakopoulos [1979] 1993:15658; Chadwick 2003:
12492). Pope Nicholas I (858867) supported the deposed Patriarch Igna-
tius and objected to Photeuss ascent. The schism was subsequently mended
in an 879 synod, but it was in this context that the Papacy used the doctrine
of papal primacy and a claim to universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction, only to
have both rebuffed. In turn, Photeus wrote his Mystagogia, a theological
defense of Orthodoxy, which later became a reference point for anti-Latin
authors. Photeus rejected papal primacy and considered the Western theo-
logical approach (inclusive of the Filioque) as a departure from Christian
Orthodoxy.
From this point forward, the lack of linguistic skills necessary for under-
standing the other sides arguments became an important factor in the West
East dialogue. The barbarian invasions of the previous centuries caused an
increasing decline in knowledge of Greek in the West and of Latin in the
East. Lawyers were most often the ones who preserved language skills. Not
knowing the other sides language meant lack of access to their texts. Igno-
rance bred misunderstandings and increased prejudices and stereotypes
(Pelikan 1977:17983). This turn of events amplified cultural cleavages.
For example, in the translation of Patriarch Michael Cerulariuss January
1054 letter to the pope, his title (Ecumenical Patriarch) was rendered as
Patriarcha Universalis in Latin. Unsurprisingly, this was viewed as usurpa-
tion of the rightful universal jurisdiction claimed by the Papacy itself (Harris
[2003] 2007:44). The 968 AD visit of Liudprand of Cremona to Constan-
tinople offers a spectacular example of rancor, snobbery, mutual suspicion
Bibliography
The phrase (in Greek) indicates sources in Greek whose titles have been translated
into English. It is also used for the Greek editions of books published in other
languages. The dates cited are the dates of the editions used. Original dates of
publication are listed in brackets.
PRIMARY SOURCES AND REFERENCE WORKS
In addition to the traditional primary documents included in this section are all an-
nouncements and commentaries published in the press or accessed online/through
websites as well as statistical sources, encyclopedia entries, and so forth.
Angelopoulos, Athanasios. 2004a. The Patriarchal Rights in Greece in Comparison
to the Law of the Church of Greece, Part 1. Ekklesia 1 (January): 3445 (in Greek).
. 2004b. The Patriarchal Rights in Greece in Comparison to the Law of the
Church of Greece, Part 2. Ekklesia 2 (February):14045 (in Greek).
Antoniadou, Maria. 2003. Who Are the New Lands Hierarchs and What Stand
Will They Adopt in the Hierarchal Synod. To Vima, October 19. Retrieved Oc-
tober 19, 2003 (http://www. tovima.gr/) (in Greek).
Archive of the Late Archbishops of Cyprus (ALAC). Book A, Part A, Documents
17671853.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2005. 1301.0: Year Book Australia, 2005. Austra-
lian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved July 5, 2010 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
[email protected]/0/E4F6E98AA14943F3CA256F7200832F71?opendocument).
Barret, David B., George Thomas Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson. 2001. World
Christian Encyclopedia (2 vols.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch. 2004. Letter to the Church of Greece. Ekklesia
1 (January): 2831 (in Greek).
Chakrabarty, D. 1992. Provincializing Europe: Post-coloniality and the Critique of
History. Cultural Studies 6(3): 337357.
Christodoulos (Paraskeuaidis), Archbishop of Greece. 1999. Of Soil and Heaven.
Athens, Greece: Kastaniotis (in Greek).
. 2001. Church and People: An Unbroken Relationship. Lecture at the
Marine Club of Piraeus, June 19. (available at www.ecclesia.gr) (in Greek).
Cyprus Blue Books. 18871931. Various Issues. Nicosia, Cyprus.
Cyprus Gazette. 1925. Notification No. 266 (1 May).
EC-PATR (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople). 2003a. Patriarchal Letter to
Archbishop Christodoulos about the Vacated Metropolitan Seat of Thessaloniki
(August 28). All documents in Greek, available at www.ec-patr.org.
194 Bibliography
. 2003b. Patriarchal Letter to the Metropolitans of the Northern Greek Epar-
chies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the So-Called New Lands (October 23).
All documents in Greek, available at www.ec-patr.org.
. 2003c. Press Release of the Athens Representative of the Ecumenical Patri-
archate. All documents in Greek, available at www.ec-patr.org.
. 2004a. Reply to Archbishop Christodoulos (March 31). All documents in
Greek, available at www.ec-patr.org.
. 2004b. Reply to Archbishop Christodoulos about the Patriarchates Metro-
politan Seats in Northern Greece and the Aegean (March 31). All documents in
. 2004c. Message of the Ecumenical Patriarchate about the Issue of the
Metropolitans of Northern Greece and Aegean (April 24). All documents in
. 2004d. Synodical Act (n.d.). All documents in Greek, available at www
.ec-patr.org.
. 2004e. Synodical Act (June 4). All documents in Greek, available at www
.ec-patr.org.
Ekklesia, Official Journal of the Church of Greece. Various issues (available at www
.ecclesia.gr).
Feidias, Vlassios. 2003. How to overcome the Crisis. To Vima (October 12).
http://www.tovima.gr/. Accessed October 12, 2003 (in Greek).
Fekete L. 1986. Bert. Vol. 1, pp. 11701171 in Encyclopedia of Islam, edited by
P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs et al.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Halman, Loek. 2003. European Values Study: A Third Wave. Source Book of the
1999/2000 European Values Study Surveys. Tilburg, Netherlands: EVS, WORC,
Tilburg University.
The Holy Monastery of Mount Sinai. n.d. Retrieved June 3, 2011 (http://www
.sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=146).
HSCG (Holy Synod of the Church of Greece). 2003a. Announcement about the
Submission of the Roster of the Candidate Metropolitans to the Patriarchate.
Press release. All documents in Greek, available at http://www.ecclesia.gr.
. 2003b. The Decisions of the Hierarchy about Relations with the Ecumeni-
cal Patriarchate. Press release. All documents in Greek, available at http://www
.ecclesia.gr.
. 2003c. About the Mission of Hierarchical Committee to the Patriarchate.
Press release. All documents in Greek, available at http://www.ecclesia.gr.
. 2004. About Recent Developments of Relations with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. Press release. All documents in Greek, available at http://www
.ecclesia.gr.
International Social Survey Program (ISSP). 1998. Religion II. Central Archive for
Empirical Social Research. University of Cologne and Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-
University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Katsikas, Socratis, Nikolaos Vernikos, Maria Georgala, Dimitris Grizalis, Sofia
Daskalopoulou-Gkapetanaki, and Anna Papastamopoulou. 1995. Hellenic Di-
aspora. File: Australia, USA, Canada, New Zealand. Athens, Greece: Secretariat
General of the Hellenic Diaspora (in Greek).
Kazhdan, Alexander. 1991a. Byzantium. In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium,
edited by A. P. Kazhdan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved December 6,
2010 (http://www. oxfordreference.com/).
. 1991b. Romania. In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, edited by A. P.
Kazhdan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved December 7, 2010 (http://
www.oxfordreference.com/).
Bibliography 195
Krindatch, Alexei D. 2006. The Orthodox (Eastern Christian) Churches in the USA
at the Beginning of the New Millennium. Retrieved July 1, 2010 (http://hirr
.hartsem.edu/research/orthodoxindex.html).
. 2010. Orthodox Reality in America. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved
August 31, 2011 (http://www. orthodoxreality.org/).
. 2011. Atlas of American Orthodox Churches. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross
Orthodox Press.
Macedonian News Agency. 2003. The Archbishop Received the Patriarchs Reply.
News Report online (December 4) (in Greek).
Mouzelis, Nicos. 2003. The Strategy of Equal Distance. To Vima, November 12
(in Greek). http://www.tovima.gr/. Accessed November 12.
Mpoumis, Panagiotis. 2003. Canonicity, Legality, and the Patriarchal Act of 1928.
Ekklesia 12 (December): 91214 (in Greek).
. 2004. The Acceptance of the Patriarchal Act of 1928 and the Mission of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Ekklesia 3 (March):21621 (in Greek).

National Council of Churches. 2009. Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches.
New York: National Council of Churches.
NET News Broadcast. 2004. 2006, November 29, November 30, December 15.
Odyssey: The World of Greece. 1994. Magazine (various issues).
Oikonomikos Tachidromos. 1997. Special Issue on the Hellenic Diaspora. Novem-
ber 24 (in Greek). Athens: DOL.
Papadakis, Aristide. 1991. Ecumenical Patriarch. In The Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium, edited by A. P. Kazhdan. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved December 6, 2010 (http://www.oxfordreference.com/).
Papaioannou, George. 1996. The Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of North and
South America. Greek American Monthly 2:1.
Papoutsaki, Maria. 2003. Dear Beloved Brother . . . Eleftherotypia, November 16
(in Greek). Accessed November 16, 2003 (www.enet.gr).
Religion in Germany. n.d. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 15, 2010 (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany#Orthodoxy).
Republic of Cyprus. 2003. 2001 Population Census. Vol. 1, General Demographic
Characteristics. Nicosia, Cyprus: Printing Office of the Republic of Cyprus (in
Greek).
Rodopoulos, Metropolitan Panetleimon. n.d. Commemoration of the Name of the
Bishop During the Divine Liturgy. Retrieved March 2008 (www.ec-patr.org) (in
Greek).
Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). 2000. Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian
Orthodox Church. Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow
Patriarchate. Retrieved June 28, 2011 (http://orthodoxeurope.org/print/3/14.
aspx).
. 2010. Statistics on Russian Orthodox Church Publicized by Patriarch Kirill
in His Report to the Bishops Conference in Moscow. Department for External
Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. Retrieved June 28, 2011 (http://
www.mospat.ru/en/2010/02/02news12442/).
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). Accessed June 1, 2012
(http://www.synod.com/synod/indexeng.htm).
Tsatsis, Thomas. 2003a. Bartholomew Throws the Glove. Eleftherotypia, Octo-
ber 17 (in Greek). Accessed October 17, 2003 (www.enet.gr).
. 2003b. In Search of a Go-Between for Orthodoxy. To Vima, October 19
(in Greek). Accessed October 19, 2003 (http://www.tovima.gr/).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Popula-
tion: 1990 to 2008. Retrieved July 1, 2010 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/
statab/2010/tables/10s0075.pdf).
196 Bibliography
Wigglesworth, Kevin. 2010. Statistics of Orthodox Christianity in Canada. Cana-

dian Journal of Orthodox Christianity 5(1):2848.
Wilson, R. (Producer) and J. Zwick (Director). 2002. My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Motion picture. USA: Gold Circle Films.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Agadjanian, Alexander. 2001. Public Religion and the Quest for National Ideo-
logy: Russias Media Discourse. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
40(3):35165.
. 2003. Breakthrough to Modernity, Apologia for Traditionalism: The
Russian Orthodox View of Society and Culture in Comparative Perspective.
Religion, State and Society 31(4):32746.

Agadjanian, Alexander and Kathy Rousselet. 2005. Globalization and Identity Dis-
course in Russian Orthodoxy. Pp. 2957 in Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age:
Tradition Faces the 21st Century, edited by V. Roudometof, A. Agadjanian, and
J. Pankhurst. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Agadjanian, Alexander and Victor Roudometof. 2005. Eastern Orthodoxy in a
Global Age: Preliminary Considerations. Pp. 126 in Eastern Orthodoxy
in a Global Age: Tradition Meets the 21st Century, edited by V. Roudometof,
A. Agadjanian, and J. Pankhurst. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Alasya, Halil Fikret. 1973. The Privileges Granted to the Orthodox Church of
Cyprus by the Ottoman Empire. In Minutes of the First Cyprological Confer-
ence, Vol. 3, edited by T. Papadopoulos and M. Christodoulou. Nicosia, Cyprus:
Kypriakai Spoudai (in Greek).
Albrow, Martin. 1997. The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Aleksov, Bojab. 2010. The Serbian Orthodox Church: Haunting Past and Chal-
lenging Future. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church
10(23):17691.
Alexander, Stella. 1979. Church and State Relations in Yugoslavia Since 1945.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Alexandris, Akis. 1983. The Greek Minority of Istanbul and GreekTurkish Rela-
tions, 19181974. Athens, Greece: Centre for Asia Minor Studies.
Alivizatos, Nicos C. 1999. A New Role for the Church of Greece? Journal of
Modern Greek Studies 17(1):2339.
Altglas, Veronique, ed. 2010. Religion and Globalization: Critical Concepts in So-
cial Studies. Vol. 14. London, England: Routledge.
Anagnostopoulou, Sia. 1998. Chypre de lre Ottomane lre Britannique
(18391914). Le Rle de lglise Orthodoxe Chypriote. tudes Balkaniques
5:145183.
. 1999. The Church of Cyprus and Its Ethnarchical Role. Syghrona The-
mata 6870:181201 (in Greek).
Anagnostou, Yiorgos. 2003. Model Americans, Quintessential Greeks: Ethnic Suc-
cess and Assimilation in Diaspora. Diaspora 3:279327.
Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Archbishop of Albania. 2003. Facing the World: Ortho-
dox Christian Essays on Global Concerns. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Semi-
nary Press.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities (2nd ed.). London, England: Verso.
Andrianopoulos, Andreas. 2001. Hellenism and Orthodoxy. Athens, Greece: Kak-
tos (in Greek).
Bibliography 197
Angold, Michael. 1995. Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni,
10811261. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
. 2003. The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context. London, England: Pearson
Longman.
. 2006. Byzantium and the West. Pp. 5378 in The Cambridge History
of Christianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity, edited by M. Angold. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Apostolopoulos, Dimitrios G. 1995. The Ideological Orientations of the Patriarch-
ate of Constantinople After the Fall. Athens, Greece: Goulandri-Horn Founda-
tion (in Greek).
Appadurai, Arjun. 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural
Economy. Pp. 295310 in Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Mo-
dernity, edited by M. Featherstone. London, England: Sage.
. 1995. The Production of Locality. Pp. 20425 in Counterworks: Man-
aging the Diversity of Knowledge, edited by R. Fardon. London, England:

Routledge.
. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minne-
apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Arnason, Johann P. 2000. Approaching Byzantium: Identity, Predicament, and
Afterlife. Thesis Eleven 62:5969.
. 2004. Parallels and Divergences: Perspectives on the Early Second Millen-
nium. Medieval Encounters 10(13):1340.
Asad, Talal. 1993. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in
Christianity and Islam. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Basil, John D. 2005. Church-State Relations in Russia: Orthodoxy and Federation
Law, 19902004. Religion, State and Society 33(2):15163.
Bastian, Jean Pierre, Franoise Champion, and Kathy Rousselet, eds. 2001. La
Globalisation du Religieux. Paris, France: LHarmattan.
Batalden, Stephen. 1983. Catherine IIs Greek Prelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia,
17711806. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs.
Bayly, Christopher A. 2004. The Birth of the Modern World 17801914: Global
Connections and Comparisons. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society. London, England: Sage.
Beck, Ulrich and Elisabeth Beck-Gerhsheim. 2002. Individualization: Institutionalized
Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. London, England: Sage.
Beckford, James. 2003. Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Bendix, Reinhard. 1978. Kings or People? Power and the Mandate to Rule. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
. 1984. Force, Fate, Freedom: On Historical Sociology. Berkeley, CA: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Berger, Peter. 2002. Globalization and Religion. The Hedgehog Review 4(2):720.
. 2005. Orthodoxy and Global Pluralism Demokratizatsiya: The Journal
of Post-Soviet Democratization 13(3):43748.
Berger, Peter, Grace Davie, and Effie Fokas. 2008. Religious America, Secular
Europe? A Theme and Variations. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Berger, Peter and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. 2002. Many Globalizations: Cultural
Diversity in the Contemporary World. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Berger, Peter, Jonathan Sacks, David Martin, and Tu Weiming. 1999. The Desecu-
larization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Washington, DC
and Grand Rapids, MI: Ethics and Public Policy Center and Wm. B. Eerdmans.
198 Bibliography
Besecke, Kelly. 2005. Seeing Invisible Religion: Religion as a Societal Conversation
About Transcendent Meaning. Sociological Theory 23(2):17996.
Beyer, Peter. 1994. Religion and Globalization. London, England: Sage.
. 2006. Religions in Global Society. London, England: Sage.
. 2007. Globalization and Glocalization. Pp. 98117 in The Sage Hand-
book of the Sociology of Religion, edited by J. A. Beckford and N. J. Demerath,
III. London, England: Sage.
Beyer, Peter and Lori Beaman, eds. 2007. Religion, Globalization and Culture.
Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2007. Rethinking Modernity: Post-Colonialism and the
Sociological Imagination. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bloch, Marc. 1961. Feudal Society. Translated by L. A. Manyon. Vol. 12. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bogolepov, Alexander. [1963] 2001. Toward an American Orthodox Church: The
Establishment of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church (2nd rev. ed.). Crestwood,

NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press.
Boli, John and Frank Lechner. 2005. World Culture: Origins and Consequences.
Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Borowik Irena, ed. 1999. ChurchState Relations in Central and Eastern Europe
After the Collapse of Communism. Krakow, Poland: Zaklad Wydawniczy Nomos.
. 2002. Between Orthodoxy and Eclecticism: On the Religious Transforma-
tions of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. Social Compass 49(4):497508.
. 2006. Orthodoxy Confronting the Collapse of Communism in Post-Soviet
Countries. Social Compass 53(2):26778.
. 2007. The Religious Landscape of Central and Eastern Europe After Com-
munism. Pp. 65469 in The Sage Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, edited
by J. A. Beckford and N. J. Demerath, III. London, England: Sage.
Borowik, Irena and Miklos Tomka, eds. 2001. Religion and Social Change in Post-
Communist Europe. Krakow, Poland: Nomos.
Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, eds. 1982. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman
Empire. Vol. 1. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Broun, Janice. 1993. The Schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Religion,
State and Society (21)2:20720.
. 2000. The Schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Part 2: Under the
Socialist Government, 199397. Religion, State and Society 28(2):26389.
. 2004. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church: The Continuing Schism and
the Religious, Social and Political Environment. Religion, State and Society
32(3):20945.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National
Question in the New Europe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
. 2012. Religion and Nationalism: Four approaches. Nations and Nation-
alism (18)1:220.
Bruce, Steve. 2011. Secularization: In Defense of an Unfashionable Theory. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Bruneau, Michel. 1993. Lglise Orthodoxe et la Diaspora Hellnique. Social
Compass 40(2):199216.
Bryant, Rebecca. 2004. Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in
Cyprus. London, England: I. B. Tauris.
Buchenau, Klaus. 2005. From Hot War to Cold Integration? Serbian Orthodox
Voices on Globalization and the European Union. Pp. 5883 in Eastern Ortho-
doxy in a Global Age: Tradition Faces the 21st Century, edited by V. Roudome-
tof, A. Agadjanian, and J. Pankhurst. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
. 2010. The Serbian Orthodox Church. Pp. 6078 in Eastern Christianity
and the Cold War, 194591, edited by L. Leaustean. London, England: Routledge.
Bibliography 199
Burke, Peter. 2010. Cultural Hybridity. Athens, Greece: Metehmio (in Greek).
Bushkovitch, Paul A. 1992. Religion and Society in Russia: The Sixteenth and Sev-
enteenth Centuries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Buss, Andreas E. 2003. The Russian Orthodox Tradition and Modernity. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill.
Byrnes, Timothy and Peter Katzenstein, eds. 2006. Religion in an Expanding
Europe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Calhoun, Craig, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Jonathan Van Antwerpen. 2011.
Rethinking Secularism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, George Van Pelt. 2005. Everything You Know Seems Wrong: Globali-
zation and the Relativizing of Tradition. Baltimore, MD: University Press of
America.
. 2007. Religion and Phases of Globalization. Pp. 281304 in Religion,
Globalization and Culture, edited by P. Beyer and L. Beaman. Leiden, Nether-
lands: Brill.
Canclini, Nestor Garcia. 1995. Hybrid Cultures. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Casanova, Jose. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago, IL: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
. 2001. Religion, the New Millennium, and Globalization. Sociology of
Religion 62(4):41542.
. 2006. Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective. The
Hedgehog Review 8(12):722.
Castellan, George. 1984. Facteur religieux et identit nationale dans les Balkans
aux XIXeXXe sicles. Revue Historique 27(1):13551.
. 1985. Le romantisme historique: une des sources de lidologie des Etats
Balkaniques aux XIXe et XXe sicles. Etudes Historiques 3(1):187203.
Cava, Ralph Della. 2001. Transnational Religions: The Roman Catholic Church in
Brazil and the Orthodox Church in Russia. Sociology of Religion 62(4):53550.
evikel, Nuri. 2001. Degis im Dneminde Bir Osmanl Eyleti Kbrs (1750
1800). Pp. 99120 in Dnden Bgne Kbrs Meselesi [Cyprus, an Ottoman
District in a Period of Changes], edited by A. Ahmetbeyoglu and E. Afyoncu.
Istanbul, Turkey: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakf.
Chadwick, Henry. 2003. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church from
Apostolic Times Until the Council of Florence. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Christiano, Kevin. 2008. Clio Goes to Church: Revisiting and Revitalizing Histori-
cal Thinking in the Sociology of Religion. Sociology of Religion 69(1):128.
Christodoulou, Nikos. 1993a. The Church Property During the British Rule.
Review of the Research Center of the Holy Kykkos Monastery 2:37998 (in
Greek).
. 1993b. Efforts to Settle the Regime of the Church of Cyprus During the
British Rule. Antipelargisis. Nicosia, Cyprus: Kykkos Monastery Research Cen-
ter (in Greek).
. 1999. The Cyprus Archiepiscopal Issue During 19001910. Nicosia, Cy-
prus: The Research Centre of Kykkos Monastery (in Greek).
Chrysostomos (Bishop of Etna), Auxentios (Bishop of Photiki), and Archimandrite
Ambrosios. 1991. The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece. Etna, CA:
Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies.
Chumachenko, Tatiana A. 2002. Church and State in Soviet Russia: Russian Ortho-
doxy from World War II to the Khrushchev Years. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Cirkovic, Sima M. [1996] 2007. Between Kingdom and Empire: Dusans State
13451355 Reconsidered. Pp. 36575 in The Expansion of Orthodox Europe,
edited by J. Shepard. Aldershot, UK: Asghage/Valorium.
200 Bibliography
Clapsis, Emmanuel. 2004. The Challenge of a Global World. Pp. 4766 in The
Orthodox Churches in a Pluralistic World: An Ecumenical Conversation, edited
by E. Clapsis. Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications and Brookline, MA: Holy
Cross Orthodox Press.
Clark, Victoria. 2000. Why Angels Fall: A Journey Through Orthodox Europe from
Byzantium to Kosovo. New York: St. Martins Press.
Cleary, Richard James. 1993. Pope Innocent III and the Greek Church (11981216).
Rome, Italy: R. J. Cleary.
Clendenin, Daniel B. [1994] 2002. Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Per-
spective, 4th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Constas, Dimitri C. and Athanasios G. Platias, eds. 1993. Diasporas in World Poli-
tics: The Greeks in Comparative Perspective. London, England: Macmillan.
Counelis, James Steve. 1997. The Holy American Church and the Ecumenical
Patriarchate: Two Ecclesiastical Cultures. Pp. 525 in The American Church
and the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Governance, Diaspora, Role of Women, ed-

ited by Orthodox Christian Laity, Harvard Club of Boston, Holy Cross Greek
Orthodox School of Theology (Hellenic College), and Maliotis Cultural Center.
Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life.
Crummey, Robert. 1987. The Formation of Muscovy 13041613. London, England:
Longman.
. 2006. Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia and Ukraine in the Age of the
Counter-Reformation. Pp. 30224 in The Cambridge History of Christianity.
Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity, edited by M. Angold. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Csordas, Thomas J. 2009. Transnational Transcendence: Essays on Religion and
Globalization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Curanovic, Alicia. 2007. The Attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate Towards Other
Orthodox Churches. Religion, State and Society 35(4):30118.
Danforth, Loring. 1995. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Trans-
national World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
. 2000. Ecclesiastical Nationalism and the Macedonian Question in the Aus-
tralian Diaspora. Pp. 2554 in The Macedonian Question: Culture, Historiogra-
phy, Politics, edited by V. Roudometof. Boulder, CO: East European Monographs.
Danopoulos, Constantine. 2004. Religion, Civil Society and Democracy in Ortho-
dox Greece. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans 6(1):4156.
Davie, Grace. 2002. Europe: The Exceptional Case. London, England: Darton,
Longman & Todd.
Davis, Nathaniel. 2003. A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian
Orthodoxy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
de la Perrotine, Hugues Jean Dianoux. 1997. Part I: Histoire de lglise de Chypre
Jusqua lIndependence. Thetis 4:193209.
Demetriou, Chares. 2007. Big Structures, Social Boundaries and Identity in Cy-
prus, 14001700. American Behavioral Scientist 51(10):147797.
Dimitropoulos, Panagiotis. 2001. State and Church: A Difficult Relationship. Athens,
Greece: Kritiki (in Greek).
Dimitrov, Ivan Zhelev. 2007. Bulgarian Christianity. Pp. 4772 in The Blackwell
Companion to Eastern Christianity, edited by K. Perry. London, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Dinnerstein, Leonard and David M. Reimers. 1982. Ethnic Americans: A History of
Immigration and Assimilation. New York: Harper and Row.
Dunlop, John B. 1995. The Russian Orthodox Church as an Empire-Saving In-
stitution. Pp. 1540 in The Politics of Religion in Russia and the New States of
Euasia, edited by M. Bourdeaux. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Bibliography 201
Ebaugh, Helen Rose Fuchs and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. 2002. Religion Across Bor-
ders: Transnational Immigrant Networks. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Egglezakis, Benedicte. 1986. The Church of Cyprus Between 1878 and 1955.
Pp. 3162 in Kypriaka 18781955. Nicosia, Cyprus: Nicosia Municipality (in
Greek).
. 1995. Studies on the History of the Church of Cyprus, 4th20th Centuries.
London, England: Valorium.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1986. The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
, ed. 2002. Multiple Modernities. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Englestein, Laura. 2001. Holy Russia in Modern Times: An Essay on Orthodoxy
and Cultural Change. Past and Present (173):12956.
Erickson, John H. 1999. Orthodox Christians in America. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Esposito, John L., Darrell J. Fasching, and Todd Lewis. 2008. Religion and Glo-
balization: World Religions in Historical Perspective. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Fajfer, Lukasz and Sebastian Rimestad. 2010. The Patriarchates of Moscow and
Constantinople in a Global Age: A Comparison. International Journal for the
Study of the Christian Church 10(2/3):21127.
FitzGerald, Thomas. 1995. The Orthodox Church. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
. 2007. Eastern Christianity in the United States. Pp. 26979 in The Blackwell
Companion to Eastern Christianity, edited by K. Perry. London, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Flora, Gavril, Georgina Szilagyi, and Victor Roudometof. 2005. Religion and Na-
tional Identity in Post-Communist Romania. Journal of Southern Europe and
the Balkans 7(1):3555.
Flusty, Steven. 2004. De-Coca-Colonization: Making the Globe from the Inside
Out. New York: Routledge.
Frangoudis, Giorgos. [1911] 2002. History of the Archiepiscopal Issue 19001910.
Nicosia, Cyprus: Aichmi (in Greek).
Frazee, Charles. 1983. Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire
14531923. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
Freeze, Gregory L. 1983. The Parish Clergy in 19th Century Russia: Crisis, Reform,
Counter-Reform. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
. 1985. Handmaiden of the State? The Orthodox Church in Russia Recon-
sidered. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 86:82102.
. 1996. Subversive Piety: Religion and the Political Crisis in Late Imperial
Russia. Journal of Modern History 68:30850.
Gans, Herbert. 1979. Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cul-
tures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2:120.
Garrard, John and Carol Garrard. 2008. Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent: Faith and
Power in the New Russia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gavrielides, C. [1950] 1972. The Ethnarchic Rights and the Referendum for Union
with Greece. Nicosia, Cyprus: n.p. (in Greek).
Gazi, Efi. 2004. The Second Life of the Three Hierarchs: A Genealogy of the Greco-
Christian Civilization. Athens, Greece: Nefeli (in Greek).
Geanakopoulos, Deno John. [1979] 1993. Medieval Western Civilization and the
Byzantine and Islamic Worlds. Thessaloniki, Greece: Kiromanos (in Greek).
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Georghallides, S. George. 1979. A Political and Administrative History of Cyprus,
19181926. Nicosia, Cyprus: Cyprus Research Center.
202 Bibliography
Geraci, Robert and Michael Khodarovsky, eds. 2001. Of Religion and Empire: Mis-
sions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press.
Gerstel, Sharon E. J. and Alice-Mary Talbot. 2006. The Culture of Lay Piety in Me-
dieval Byzantium 10541453. Pp. 79100 in The Cambridge History of Chris-
tianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity, edited by M. Angold. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Ghodsee, Kristen. 2009. Symphonic Secularism: Eastern Orthodoxy, Ethnic Iden-
tity and Religious Freedoms in Contemporary Bulgaria. Anthropology of East
Europe Review 27(2):22752.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Giorgi, Liana and Catherine Marsh. 1990. The Protestant Work Ethic as a Cultural
Phenomenon. European Journal of Social Psychology 20:499517.
Gonis, Dimitrios B. 2001. History of the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria and Ser-
bia. Athens, Greece: Armos (in Greek).
Gorski, Philip S. 2000. The Mosaic Moment: An Early Modernist Critique of
Modernist Theories of Nationalism. American Journal of Sociology 105(5):
142868.
. 2005. The Return of the Repressed: Religion and the Political Unconscious
of Historical Sociology. Pp. 16189 in Remaking Modernity: Politics, History
and Sociology, edited by J. Adams, E. S. Clemens, and A. S. Orloff. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Gorksi, Philip S. and Ates Altinordou. 2008. After Secularization? Annual Review
of Sociology 34:5585.
Gregory, Timothy E. 2005. A History of Byzantium. Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Gudziak, Borys A. 1998. Crisis and Reform: The Kyvian Metropolitanate, the Pa-
triarchate of Constantinople and the Genesis of the Union of Brest. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.
Guillen, Mauro F. 2001. Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Cri-
tique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature. Annual Review of
Sociology (27):235260.
Gvosdev, Nikolas. 2001. An Examination of ChurchState Relations in the Byzan-
tine and Russian Empires with an Emphasis on Ideology and Models of Interac-
tion. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Hagan, Jacqueline and Helen Rose Ebaugh. 2003. Calling Upon the Sacred: Mi-
grants Use of Religion in the Migration Process. International Migration Re-
view 37(4):114563.
Hammerli, Maria. 2010. Orthodox Diaspora? A Sociological and Theological
Problematization of a Stock Phrase. International Journal for the Study of the
Christian Church 10(23):97115.
Hann, Chris. 2011. Eastern Christianity and Western Social Theory. Erfurt, Germany:
University of Erfurt.
Hann, Chris and Herman Goltz. 2010. Introduction: The Other Christianity?
Pp. 132 in Eastern Christians in Anthropological Perspective, edited by C. Hann
and H. Goltz. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Harris, Jonathan. [2003] 2007. Byzantium and the Crusades. London, England:
Hambledon Continuum.
Hasiotes, Ioannes. 1993. Overview of the History of the Hellenic Diaspora. Thes-
saloniki, Greece: Vanias (in Greek).
Bibliography 203
. 2006. Introduction. Pp. 1331 in The Greeks in Diaspora, 15th21st
Centuries, edited by I. K. Hasiotis, O. Katsiardi-Hering, and E. A. Ambatzi. Ath-
ens, Greece: Greek Parliament (in Greek).
Hastings, Adrian. 1997. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and
Nationalism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Haynes, Jeff. 1998. Religion in Global Politics. London, England: Longman.
Heckel, Sergei. 2006. Diaspora Problems of the Russian Emigration. Pp. 53957
in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity, edited by
M. Angold. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hedgehog Review. 2002. Special Issue: Religion and Globalization Vol. 4 (2, Sum-
mer). Charlottesville, VA: Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture, University
of Virginia.
Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999.
Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Herrin, Judith. 1987. The Formation of Christendom. Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Hervieu-Lger, Danile. 2000. Religion as a Chain of Memory. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Hill, George. 1972. A History of Cyprus. Vol. 4. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hinnells, John R. 2010. Why Study Religions? Pp. 520 in The Routledge Com-
panion to the Study of Religion, edited by J. R. Hinnells. London, England:
Routledge.
Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth,
Reality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, John M. 2004. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Cambridge,
Holton, Robert. 2009. Cosmopolitanisms. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hopkins, A. G., ed. 2002. Globalization in World History. New York: W. W. Norton.
Hopkins, Dwight N., Lois Ann Lorentzen, Eduardo Mendieta, and David Batstone,
eds. 2001. Religions/Globalizations: Theories and Cases. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Hosking, Geoffrey. 1998a. Russia: People and Empire, 15521917. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
. 1998b. Can Russia Become a Nation-State? Nations and Nationalism
4(4):44962.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the
World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hussey, Joan Mervy. [1986] 1990. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire.
Oxford, England: Clarendon.
Ignatiev, Noel. 1996. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge.
Ilchev, Ivan. [1995] 2001. Is My Fatherland Right? The Propaganda of the Balkan
States (18211923), Greek ed. Thessaloniki, Greece: Epikentro.
Inalcik, Halil. 1978. The Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organization, and Economy.
London, England: Valorium.
. 1980. Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600
1700. Archivum Ottomanicum 6:283337.
. 1991. The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate Under the Otto-
mans. Turcica 2223:40736.
Inglis, David. 2010. Civilizations or Globalization(s)?: Intellectual Rapproche-
ments and Historical World-Visions. European Journal of Social Theory 13:
13552.
204 Bibliography
Ivanov, Sergey A. 2008. Religious Missions. Pp. 30532 in The Cambridge His-
tory of the Byzantine Empire, c. 5001492, edited by J. Shepard. Cambridge,
Ivekovic, Ivan. 2002. Nationalism and the Political Use and Abuse of Religion:
The Politicization of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Islam in Yugoslav Successor
States. Social Compass 49(4):52336.
Jelavich, Barbara. 1983. History of the Balkans (2 vols.). Cambridge, England:
. 1991. Russias Balkan Entanglements 18061914. Cambridge, England:
Juergensmeyer, Mark. 1994. The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts
the Secular State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
. 2001. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jusdanis, Gregory. 1991. Greek Americans and the Diaspora. Diaspora 1:20923.
Kaplan, Robert D. 1993. Balkan Ghosts: A Journey Through History. New York:
St. Martins Press.
Karpathakis, Anna. 1993. Sojourners and Settlers: Greek Immigrants of Astoria,
New York. PhD dissertation. Columbia University, New York.
. 1994. Whose Church Is It Anyway? Greek Immigrants of Astoria, New
York and Their Church. Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora 20(1):97122.
. 1999. Home Society Politics and Immigrant Political Incorporation: The
Case of Greek Immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review
33(1):5578.
Karpathakis, Anna and Victor Roudometof. 2004. Changing Racial Conceptual-
izations: Greek Americans in NYC. Pp. 26589 in Research in Urban Sociology.
Vol. 7, Race and Ethnicity in New York City, edited by J. Krase and R. Hutchi-
son. New York: Elsevier Press.
Karykopoulou, Chrysoula. 1979. The International Status of the Ecumenical Patri-
archate. Athens, Greece: Grigoris (in Greek).
Katsas, Gregory. 1992. Differential Self-Employment Among the Foreign-Born and
Native-Born: The Case of Greeks in New York. PhD dissertation. Fordham Uni-
versity, New York.
Katsiaounis, Rolandos. 1996. Labour, Society, and Politics in Cyprus during the
Second Half of the Nineteenth Century. Nicosia, Cyprus: Cyprus Research
Center.
. 1997. The European Presence in Cyprus During the Seventeenth and Eigh-
teenth Centuries. Review of the Center for Social Research 23:22344.
Kennan, George. F. 1993. The Balkan Crisis: 1913 and 1993. New York Review
of Books, July 15, pp. 37.
Kennedy, Paul and Victor Roudometof. 2002. Transnationalism in a Global Age.
Pp. 126 in Communities Across Borders, edited by P. Kennedy and V. Roudome-
tof. London, England: Routledge.
Khodarkovski, Michael. 2010. Not By Words Alone: Missionary Policies and
Religious Conversion in Early Modern Russia. Comparative Studies in Society
and History 38(2):26793.
Kiel, Michael. 1985. Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period. Maastricht,
Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Kitromilides, Paschalis M. 1979. The Dialectic of Intolerance: Ideological Dimen-
sions of Ethnic Conflict. Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora 6(4):530.
. 1994. Enlightenment, Nationalism, Orthodoxy. London, England:
Valorium.
. 1996. Balkan Mentality: History, Legend, Imagination. Nations and
Nationalism 2(2):16392.
Bibliography 205
. 2004. Orthodoxy, Nationalism, and Ethnic Conflict. Pp. 18388 in The
Orthodox Churches in a Pluralistic World: An Ecumenical Conversation, edited
by E. Clapsis. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
. 2006a. The Legacy of the French Revolution: Orthodoxy and Nation-
alism. Pp. 22949 in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5. Eastern
Christianity, edited by M. Angold. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
. 2006b. Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlightenment. Pp.
187209 in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity,
edited by M. Angold. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
. 2007a. An Orthodox Commonwealth. Aldershot, England: Ashgate/
Valorium.
. [1994] 2007b. Athos and the Enlightenment. Pp. 25772 in An Ortho-
dox Commonwealth, edited by P. Kitromilides. Aldershot, England: Ashgate/
Valorium.
. [1994] 2007c. From Orthodox Commonwealth to National Communi-
ties: Greek-Russian Intellectual and Ecclessiastical Ties in the Ottoman Era. Pp.
1018 in An Orthodox Commonwealth, edited by P. Kitromilides. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate/Valorium.
. [1999] 2007d. Orthodox Culture and Collective Identity in the Ottoman
Balkans During the 18th Century. Pp. 13145 in An Orthodox Commonwealth,
edited by P. Kitromilides. Aldershot, England: Ashgate/Valorium.
. [1998] 2007e. Orthodox Identities in a World of Ottoman Power.
Pp. 111 in An Orthodox Commonwealth, edited by P. Kitromilides. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate/ Valorium.
. [2000] 2007f. Philokalias First Journey? Pp. 34160 in An Ortho-
dox Commonwealth, edited by P. Kitromilides. Aldershot, England: Ashgate/
Valorium.
. 2010. The Ecumenical Patriarchate. Pp. 22139 in Eastern Christian-
ity and the Cold War, 194591, edited by L. N. Leustean. London, England:
Routledge.
Kitsikis, Dimitri. 1995. The Old Calendarists and the Rise of Religious Conserva-
tism in Greece. Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies.
Kivelson, Valerie and Robert H. Greene. 2003. Introduction: Orthodox Russia.
Pp. 119 in Orthodox Russia: Belief and Practice Under the Tsars, edited by
V. Kivelson and R. H. Greene. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Kleanthous, Marinos. 2005. Archiepiscopal Elections in Cyprus: A Historical Over-
view of the 20th Century. Nicosia, Cyprus: Power Publishing (in Greek).
Knox, Zoe. 2004. Post-Soviet Challenges to the Moscow Patriarchate, 1991
2001. Religion, State and Society 32(2):87113.
. 2005. Russian Society and the Orthodox Church: Religion in Russia after
Communism. London, England: Routledge.
Kobtzeff, Oleg. 1986. Ruling Siberia: The Imperial Power, the Orthodox
Church, and the Native People. St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 30(3):
26980.
Kokosalakis, Nicos. 1987. Religion and Modernization in Nineteenth Century
Greece. Social Compass 34(23):22341.
. 1995. Greek Orthodoxy and Modern Socio-Economic Change. Pp. 248
65 in Religion and the Transformations of Capitalism: Comparative Approaches,
edited by R. H. Roberts. London, England: Routledge.
Kolbaba, Tia. 2010. The Virtues and Faults of the Latin Christians. Pp. 114
28 in The Byzantine World, edited by P. Stephenson. London, England:
Routledge.
206 Bibliography
Konidaris, Ioannis. M. 2000. The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Contemporary
World: Problems and Prospects. Athens, Greece: Institute of Defense Analysis
(in Greek).
Konortas, Paraskeuas. 1998. Ottoman Views of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Ath-
ens, Greece: Alexandria (in Greek).
. 1999. From Tife to Millet: Ottoman Terms for the Ottoman Greek Or-
thodox Community. Pp. 16979 in Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism,
edited by D. Gondicas and C. Issawi. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press.
Kopan, Andrew T. 1990. Education and Greek Immigrants in Chicago 18921973:
A Study in Ethnic Survival. New York: Garland.
Koukoulis, Theodoros. 2004. European Union and Ecumenical Patriarchate 1991
2003. Athens, Greece: Kritiki (in Greek).
Kourvetaris, George A. 2005. The Greek Orthodox Church in the United States:
(Private) Crisis or Transition? Pp. 24574 in Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global
Age: Tradition Faces the 21st Century, edited by V. Roudometof, A. Agadjanian,

and J. Pankhurst. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
Krausmuller, Dirk. 2006. The Rise of Hesychasm. Pp. 10126 in The Cambridge
History of Christianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity, edited by M. Angold. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Krindatch, Alexei D. 2002. Orthodox (Eastern Christian) Churches in the United
States at the Beginning of a New Millennium: Questions of Nature, Identity, and
Mission. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(3):53363.
. 2003. Religion in Post-Soviet Ukraine as a Factor in Regional, Ethno-
Cultural and Political Diversity. Religion, State and Society 31(1):3773.
. 2004. Patterns of Religious Change in Post-Soviet Russia: Major Trends
from 1998 to 2003. Religion, State and Society (32)2:11536.
Kunkelman, Gary A. 1990. The Religion of Ethnicity: Belief and Belonging in a
Greek American Community. New York: Garland.
Kunovich, Robert M. 2006. An Exploration of the Salience of Christianity for Na-
tional Identity in Europe. Sociological Perspectives 49(4):43560.
Kyriazis, Neoklis. 1934. Cyprus Administration: Its Satraps. Kypriaka Hronika
9:5122 (in Greek).
Laliotou, Ioanna. 2004. Transatlantic Subjects: Acts of Migration and Cultures of
Transnationalism Between Greece and America. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Lampe, John and Marvin Jackson. 1982. Balkan Economic History. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
LeGoff, Jacques. 1980. Time, Work and Culture in the Middle Ages. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Leustean, Lucian N. 2007. For the Glory of the Romanians: Orthodoxy and Na-
tionalism in Greater Romania, 19181945. Nationalities Papers 35(4):71742.
. 2008. Orthodoxy and Political Myths in Balkan National Identities. Na-
tional Identities 10(4):42132.
. 2009. Orthodoxy and the Cold War: Religion and Political Power in Roma-
nia, 194765. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
. ed. 2010a. Eastern Christianity and the Cold War, 194591. London, Eng-
land: Routledge.
. 2010b. Eastern Christianity and the Cold War: An Overview. Pp. 115
in Eastern Christianity and the Cold War, 194591, edited by L. N. Leustean.
London, England: Routledge.
. 2010c. The Romanian Orthodox Church. Pp. 4059 in Eastern Christi-
anity and the Cold War, 194591, edited by L. N. Leustean. London, England:
Routledge.
Levitt, Peggy. 2003. You Know, Abraham Really Was the First Immigrant: Religion
and Transnational Migration. International Migration Review 37(3):84773.
Bibliography 207
. 2004. Redefining the Boundaries of Belonging: The Institutional Character
of Transnational Religious Life. Sociology of Religion 65(1):118.
. 2007. God Needs No Passport: How Immigrants Are Changing the Ameri-
can Religious Landscape. New York: Free Press.
Lieberman, Benjamin. 2006. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Mod-
ern Europe. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee.
Livanios, Dimitris. 2008. The Quest for Hellenism: Religion, Nationalism, and
Collective Identities in Greece, 14531913. Pp. 23769 in Hellenisms: Culture,
Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by K. Zacharia. Al-
dershot, England: Ashgate.
Logan, F. Donald. 2002. A History of the Church in the Middle Ages. London, Eng-
land: Routledge.
Lourie, Basil. 2007. Russian Christianity. Pp. 20730 in The Blackwell Compan-
ion to Eastern Christianity, edited by K. Perry. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Louth, Andrew. 2006. Introduction. Pp. 112 in Byzantine Orthodoxies, edited

by A. Louth and A. Casiday. Aldershot, England: Ashgate/Valorium.
. 2007. Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 6811071. Crestwood,
Lukas, Charles Philip. 2003. Enfants Terribles: The Challenge of Sectarian Con-
verts to Ethnic Orthodox Churches in the United States. Nova Religio: The
Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 7(2):523.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 2009. A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand
Years. London, England: Penguin.
Madeley, John T. S. and Zsolt Enyedi, eds. 2003. Church and State in Contemporary
Europe: The Chimera of Neutrality. London, England: Frank Cass.
Magdalino, Paul. 2008. The Empire of the Komnenoi (11181204). Pp. 62763
in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 5001492, edited by
J. Shepard. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Makrides, Vasilios N. 1991. Aspects of Greek Orthodox Fundamentalism. Ortho-
doxes Forum 5:4972.
. 1995. The Orthodox Church and the Post-War Religious Situation in
Greece. Pp. 22542 in The Post-War Generation and Establishment Reli-
gion: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by W. C. Roof, J. W. Carroll, and D. A.
Roozen. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
. 1998. Byzantium in Contemporary Greece: The Neo-Orthodox Current of
Ideas. Pp. 14153 in Byzantium and Modern Greek Identity, edited by D. Ricks
and P. Magdalino. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
. 2005. Orthodox Christianity, Rationalization, Modernization: An Assess-
ment. Pp. 179209 in Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age, edited by V. Rou-
dometof, A. Agadjanian, and J. Pankhurst. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
. 2009. Hellenic Temples and Christian Churches: A Concise History of the
Religious Cultures of Greece from Antiquity to the Present. New York: New
York University Press.
Makrides, Vasilios N. and Victor Roudometof. 2010. Tradition, Transition and
Change in Greek Orthodoxy at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Introduc-
tory Considerations. Pp. 118 in Orthodox Christianity in 21st Century Greece:
The Role of Religion in Politics, Ethnicity and Culture, edited by V. Roudometof
and V. N. Makrides. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Mango, Cyril. 1980. Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome. New York: Scribner.
. [2002] 2006. Introduction. Pp. 2142 in Oxford History of Byzantium,
edited by C. Mango. Athens, Greece: Nefeli (in Greek).
Maratheftis, Michalakis I. 1992. Cyprus Educational System. Nicosia, Cyprus:
I. M. Maratheftis (in Greek).
Marinis, Vasileios. 2010. Defining Liturgical Space. Pp. 284300 in The Byzan-
tine World, edited by P. Stephenson. London, England: Routledge.
208 Bibliography
Martin, David. 2001. Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish. Malden, MA: Black-
well Publishers.
. 2005. On Secularization: Towards a Revised General Theory. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate.
Matalas, Paraskeuas. 2003. Nation and Orthodoxy. Heraclion, Crete: University of
Crete Press (in Greek).
Matsoukas, George E. 1997. Introduction: Celebration and Reflection. Pp. 14 in
The American Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Governance, Diaspora,
Role of Women, edited by Orthodox Christian Laity, Harvard Club of Boston,
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Hellenic College), and Maliotis
Cultural Center. Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life.
. 2008. A Church in Captivity: The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Amer-
ica. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.
Matsuzato, Kimitaka. 2009. Inter-Orthodox Relations and Transborder Nationali-
ties in and Around Unrecognized Abkhazia and Transnistria. Religion, State and
Society (37)3:23962.
. 2010. South Ossetia and the Orthodox World: Official Churches, the
Greek Old Calendarist Movement, and the So-Called Alan Diocese. Journal of
Church and State 52(2):27197.
Mavrocordatos, George T. 2003. Orthodoxy and Nationalism in the Greek Case.
Pp. 11736 in Church and State in Contemporary Europe: The Chimera of Neu-
trality, edited by J. T. S. Madeley and Z. Enyedi. London, England: Frank Cass.
Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardes. 1976. The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Or-
thodox Church: A Study in the History and the Cannon of the Church. Thessa-
loniki, Greece: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies.
Mayer, Jean-Franois and Maria Hmmerli, eds. Forthcoming. Orthodoxy in the
West. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Mayes, Stanley. 1981. Makarios: A Biography. London, England: Macmillan.
McCormick, Michael. 2008. Western Approaches (700900). Pp. 395432 in The
Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 5001492, edited by J. Shepard.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McEvitt, Christopher. 2008. The Crusades and the Christian World of the East:
Tough Tolerance. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
McGuckin, John Anthony. 2008. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its
History, Doctrine and Spiritual Culture. London, England: Basil Blackwell.
McMullen, Michel. 2000. The Bahai: The Religious Construction of a Global Iden-
tity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
McMylon, Peter and Maria Vorozhishcheva. 2007. Sociology and Eastern Ortho-
doxy. Pp. 46279 in The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, edited
by K. Perry. London, England: Basil Blackwell.
McNeely, Connie L. 1995. Constructing the Nation-State: International Organiza-
tion and Prescriptive Action. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Meyendorff, John. [1981] 1988. Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of
Byzantine-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century. Athens, Greece: Domos
(in Greek).
. [1982] 1990. The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church. Athens,
Greece: Armos (Greek ed.).
. 1991. Was There Ever a Third Rome? Remarks on the Byzantine Legacy
in Russia. Pp. 4560 in The Byzantine Tradition After the Fall of Constanti-
nople, edited by J. J. Yannias. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
. [1974] 1998a. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood,
. [1964] 1998b. A Study of Gregory Palamas. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs
Seminary Press.
Bibliography 209
Meyendorff, Paul. 1991. Russia, Ritual and Reform: The Liturgical Reforms of
Nikon in the 17th Century. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press.
Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez.
1997. World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology
103(1):14481.
Michael, Michalis N. 2005. The Church of Cyprus During the Ottoman Period.
Nicosia, Cyprus: Center for Scientific Research (in Greek).
Michaelides, Sofronios. 1992. History of the Church of Citium. Larnaca, Cyprus:
Holy Metropolis of Citium (in Greek).
Michels, Georg Bernhard. 1999. At War with the Church: Religious Dissent in
Seventeenth-Century Russia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mitrofanova, Anastasia V. 2005. The Politicization of Russian Orthodoxy: Actors
and Ideas. Stuttgart, Germany: Ibidem-Verlag.
Mitrokhin, Nikolay. 2010. Orthodoxy in Ukrainian Political Life 20042009. Re-
ligion, State and Society 38(3):229251.

Mitsidis, Andreas. 1973. The Archbishop of Cyprus Election Into the Presidency
of the Cypriot State From Hagiographic, Canonical and Historical Perspective.
Nicosia, Cyprus: Anagennisis (in Greek).
Molokotos-Liederman, Lina. 2003. Identity Crisis: Greece, Orthodoxy, and the
European Union. Journal of Contemporary Religion 18:291315.
. 2007a. Looking at Religion and Greek Identity from the Outside: The
Identity Cards Conflict Through the Eyes of Greek Minorities. Religion, State
and Society 35:13961.
. 2007b. The Greek ID Card Controversy: A Case Study of Religion and
National Identity in a Changing European Union. Journal of Contemporary
Religion 22:187203.
Monos, Demetrios. 1986. The Achievement of the Greeks in the United States.
Philadelphia, PA: Centrum.
Moore, Robert I. 2004. The Transformation of Europe as a Eurasian Phenom-
enon. Medieval Encounters 10(13):7798.
Morris, Collin. [1989] 2001. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050
to 1250. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Moshovakis, G. N. 1882. Public Law in Greece During the Turkish Rule. Athens,
Greece: n.p. (in Greek).
Moskos, Charles. 1982. Greek American Studies. Pp. 1764 in The Greek
American Community in Transition, edited by H. J. Psomiades and A. Scourby.
New York: Pella.
. 1989a. Greek Americans: Struggle and Success. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-
action Books.
. 1989b. The Greek Orthodox Church in America. Journal of Modern Hel-
lenism 6:2537.
. 1993. Faith, Language, and Culture. Pp. 1732 in Project for Orthodox
Renewal: Seven Studies of Key Issues Facing Orthodox Christians in America, ed-
ited by S. J. Sfekas and G. E. Matsoukas. Chicago, IL: Orthodox Christian Laity.
. 2004. The Greeks of America. Pp. 197224 in The Greek Diaspora in the
Twentieth Century, edited by R. Clogg. London: Palgrave Macmillan (in Greek).
Mpilalis, Spiridon. 1974. Caesaropapism in the Church of Cyprus. Athens, Greece:
Orthodox Press (in Greek).
Myrianthopoulos, Kleovoulos I. 1946. Education in Cyprus Under English Rule.
Limassol, Cyprus: n.p. (in Greek).
Naletova, Inna. 2009. Other-Worldly Europe? Religion and the Church in the Or-
thodox Area of Eastern Europe. Religion, State and Society 37(4):375402.
Naumescu, Vlad. 2007. Modes of Religiosity in Eastern Christianity: Religious Pro-
cesses and Social Change in Ukraine. Berlin, Germany: LIT.
210 Bibliography
Need, Ariana and Geoffrey Evans. 2001. Analyzing Patterns of Religious Par-
ticipation in Post-Communist Eastern Europe. British Journal of Sociology
52(2):22948.
Nelson, Benjamin. 1981. On the Roads to Modernity: Conscience, Science, and Civ-
ilizations: Selected Writings. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Nikolopoulos, Panagiotis D. 2005. Privatization of Religion and Secularization of
the Church. Athens, Greece: Kastaniotis (in Greek).
Norris, Pipa and Ronald Inglehart. 2004. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics
Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Obadia, Lionel. 2010. Globalization and the Sociology of Religion. Pp. 47797
in The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion, edited by B. S.
Turner. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
OBrien, Patrick K. 2006. Historiographical Traditions and Modern Imperatives
for the Restoration of Global History. Journal of Global History 1:340.
Ostrowski, Donald. 2006. Moscow the Third Rome as Historical Ghost.

Pp. 17079 in Byzantium: Faith and Power (12611557), edited by S. T. Brooks.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Pano, Nicholas. 2010. The Albanian Orthodox Church. Pp. 14455 in Eastern
Christianity and the Cold War, 194591, edited by L. N. Leustean. London,
England: Routledge.
Papadakis, Aristide. 1997a. Diaspora. Pp. 3642 in The American Church and
the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Governance, Diaspora, Role of Women, edited by
Orthodox Christian Laity, Harvard Club of Boston, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox
School of Theology (Hellenic College) and Maliotis Cultural Center. Minneapo-
lis, MN: Light and Life.
. 1997b. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of
Gregory II of Cyprus (12831289). New York: Fordham University Press.
Papadakis, Aristide (with John Meyendorff). [1994] 2003. The Christian East and
the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 10711453 A.D. Athens, Greece: Educa-
tional Foundation of the National Bank of Greece (in Greek).
Papageorgiou, Niki. 2000. The Church in Modern Greek Society. Thessaloniki,
Greece: Pournaras (in Greek).
Papaioannou, George. 1985. The Odyssey of Hellenism in America. Thessaloniki,
Greece: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies.
. 1996. The Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of North and South America.
Greek American Monthly January (2):1.
Papkov, Irina. 2009. Contentious Conversation: Framing the Fundamentals of Or-
thodox Culture in Russia. Religion, State and Society 37(3):291309.
Paraskevaidis, Chrystodoulos. 1982. Historical and Canonical Overview of the
Old Calendarist Issue During Its Birth and Evolution in Greece. Athens, Greece:
Chrisopigi Brotherhood (in Greek).
Patrinacos, Nicos D. 1982. The Role of the Church in the Evolving Greek Ameri-
can Community. Pp. 12335 in The Greek American Community in Transition,
edited by H. J. Psomiades and A. Scourby. New York: Pella.
Patterson, George James. 1989. The Unassimilated Greeks of Denver. New York:
AMS Press.
Pavlides, Andros. 1995. Cyprus Through the Centuries in the Texts of Foreign Visi-
tors. Nicosia, Cyprus: Philokypros (in Greek).
Payne, Daniel P. 2007. Nationalism and the Local Church: The Source of Ec-
clesiastical Conflict in the Orthodox Commonwealth. Nationalities Papers
35(5):83152.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1977. The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (6001700). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bibliography 211
Peristianis, Nicos. 1993. Sociological View of Religious Life. Pp. 24562 in
Cypriot Life and Society From Right Before Independence and up until 1984.
Nicosia, Cyprus: Municipality of Nicosia (in Greek).
Persianis, Panagiotis. 1978. Church and State in Cyprus Education. Nicosia, Cy-
prus: Cyprus Research Centre.
. 2007. Cities and Civilization: The Role of Cypriot Cities in the Construction
of Cyprus Modern Culture. Nicosia, Cyprus: Intercollege Press (in Greek).
Petrou, Ioannis. 1992. Church and Politics in Greece, 17501909. Thessaloniki,
Greece: Kyriakidi (in Greek).
Petrou, Themistoklis I. 2008. The National Schism in the Homogeneia of America
and the Archbishopric of Athinagoras. Athens, Greece: Periplous (in Greek).
Phillips, Jonathan. 2005. The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople.
London, England: Pimlico.
Picchio, Riccardo. 1980. Church Slavonic. Pp. 136 in The Slavic Literary
Languages: Formation and Development, edited by A. Schenker and E. Stankiewicz.

New Haven, CT: Slavica.
Pospielovski, Dimitri. 1998. The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press.
Prevelakis, Georges. 2000. The Hellenic Diaspora and the Greek State: A Spatial
Approach. Geopolitics 5(2):17185.
Printzipas, Giorgos T. 2004. The Big Crises of the Church: Five Turning Points in
the Relations Between the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Athens, Greece: Proskinio (in Greek).
Prodromou, Elizabeth H. 2004. Religious Pluralism in Twenty-First-Century
America: Problematizing the Implications for Orthodoxy Christianity. Journal
of the American Academy of Religion September 72(3):73357.
Rada, Joel. 1995. Moscow: The Third Rome or the New Jerusalem? Forschungen
zur osteuropaeishen Geschichte 50:297307.
Radic, Ramila. 2007. Serbian Christianity. Pp. 23148 in The Blackwell Compan-
ion to Eastern Christianity, edited by K. Perry. London, England: Basil Blackwell.
Ramet, Pedro, ed. 1989. Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ramet, Sabrina P. 1996. Nihil Obstat: Religion, Politics and Social Change in East-
Central Europe and Russia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
. 2006. The Way We WereAnd Should Be Again? European Orthodox
Churches and the Idyllic Past. Pp. 14875 in Religion in an Expanding Eu-
rope, edited by T. Byrnes and P. Katzenstein. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Ramet, Sabrina P. and V. Pavlakovic. 2005. Serbia Since 1989. Seattle, WA: Univer-
sity of Seattle Press.
Rap, Claudia. 2008. Hellenic Identity, Romanitas, and Christianity in Byzantium.
Pp. 12747 in Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to
Modernity, edited by K. Zacharia. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Rappas, Alexis. 2008. The Elusive Polity: Imagining and Contesting Colonial
Authority in Cyprus During the 1930s. Journal of Modern Greek Studies
26(1):36397.
Rvay, Edit and Mikls Tomka, eds. 2007. Church and Religious Life in Post-
Communist Societies. Budapest, Hungary: Piliscsaba.
Riesebodt, Martin and May Ellen Konieczny. 2010. Sociology of Religion.
Pp. 14564 in The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion, edited by
J. R. Hinnells. London, England: Routledge.
Rifkin, Ira. 2003. Spiritual Perspectives on Globalization. Woodstock, VT: Skylight
Paths.
212 Bibliography
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. [1987] 2005. The Crusades: A History (2nd ed.). New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ritzer, George, ed. 2007. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford,
England: Wiley/Basil Blackwell.
Rizopoulou-Egoumenidou, Froso. 1995. Dragoman Hadjigeorgakis Kornesios and
His Time. Nicosia, Cyprus: Leventis Foundation (in Greek).
Robertson, Bobbie. 2003. The Three Waves of Globalization: A History of a Devel-
oping Global Consciousness. London, England: Zen Books.
Robertson, Roland. 1991. Globalization, Modernization, and Postmodernization:
The Ambiguous Position of Religion. Pp. 28191 in Religion and Global Order,
edited by R. Robertson and W. Garrett. New York: Paragon House.
. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London, England:
Sage.
. 1994. Globalisation or Glocalisation? The Journal of International Com-
munication 1(1):3352.
. 2001. Globalisation Theory 2000+: Major Problematics. Pp. 45871 in
Handbook of Social Theory, edited by G. Ritzer and B. Smart. London, England:
Sage.
. 2007. Global Millennialism: A Postmortem on Secularization. Pp. 934
in Religion, Globalization and Culture, edited by P. Beyer and L. Beaman. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill.
Robertson, Roland and William Garrett. 1991. Religion and Globalization. An
Introduction. Pp. ixxxiii in Religion and Global Order, edited by R. Robertson
and W. Garrett. New York: Paragon House.
Robertson, Roland and Kathleen White, eds. 2003. Globalization: Critical Concepts
in Sociology (6 vols.). London, England: Routledge.
Robertson, Ronald G. 2008. The Eastern Christian Churches, 8th ed. Rome, Italy:
Orientalia Christiana.
Rock, Stella. 2006. Russian Piety and Orthodox Culture, 13801589. Pp. 25375
Rohdewald, Stefan. 2008. Figures of (Trans-) National Religious Memory of the
Orthodox Southern Slavs Before 1945: An Outline on the Examples of SS. Cyril
and Methodius. Trames 123:28798.
Romanides, I. 1975. Romiosini, Romania, Roumeli. Thessaloniki, Greece: Pournara
(in Greek).
Rossi, Ino, ed. 2008. Frontiers of Globalization Research: Theoretical and Method-
ological Approaches. New York: Springer.
Roudometof, Victor. 1996. Nationalism and Identity Politics in the Balkans:
Greece and the Macedonian Question. Journal of Modern Greek Studies
14(2):253301.
. 1998a. From Rum Millet to the Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Seculariza-
tion, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 14531821. Journal of
Modern Greek Studies 16(2):1148.
. 1998b. Invented Traditions, Symbolic Boundaries, and National Identity
in Southeastern Europe: Greece and Serbia in Comparative-Historical Perspective
18301880. East European Quarterly 32(4):42968.
. 1999. Nationalism, Globalization, Eastern Orthodoxy: Unthinking the
Clash of Civilizations in Southeastern Europe. European Journal of Social
Theory 2(2):23347.
. 2000a. The Social Origins of Balkan Politics: Nationalism, Underdevelop-
ment, and the NationState in Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria 18801920. Medi-
terranean Quarterly 3(3):14663.
Bibliography 213
. 2000b. Transnationalism and Globalization: The Greek-Orthodox Dias-
pora Between Orthodox Universalism and Transnational Nationalism. Dias-
pora 9(3):36197.
. 2001. Nationalism, Globalization and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of
Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
. 2002. Collective Memory, National Identity and Ethnic Conflict: Greece,
Bulgaria and the Macedonian Question. Westport, CT: Praeger.
. 2003. Glocalization, Space and Modernity. The European Legacy
8(1):3760.
. 2005a. National Commemorations in the Balkans. Pp. 3559 in Con-
tested Ground: National Symbols and National Narratives, edited by M. Geisler.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
. 2005b. Orthodoxy as Public Religion in Post-1989 Greece. Pp. 84108
in Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age, edited by V. Roudometof, A. Agadjanian,
and J. Pankhurst. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

. 2009a. Le Christianisme Orthodoxie au Sein de la Rpublique de Chypre:
Dveloppement Institutionnel et Attitudes Religieuses. Social Compass
56(1):6068.
. 2009b. Gusts of Change: The Impact of the 1989 Revolutions for the Study
of Globalisation. European Journal of Social Theory 12(3):40924.
. 2009c. Orthodoxy and Modernity in Cyprus: The 2006 Archiepisco-
pal Elections in Historical Perspective. Journal of Contemporary Religion
24(2):189204.
. 2010a. The Evolution of Greek-Orthodoxy in the Context of World-
Historical Globalization. Pp. 2138 in Orthodox Christianity in 21st Century
Greece: The Role of Religion in Politics, Ethnicity and Culture, edited by V. Rou-
dometof and V. N. Makrides. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
. 2010b. From Greek-Orthodox Diaspora to Transnational Hellenism:
Greek Nationalism and the Identities of the Diaspora. Pp. 13966 in The Call
of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and Present, edited by A. Gal,
A. S. Leoussi, and A.D. Smith. London, England: Brill/UCL.
. 2010c. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus During the Cold War Period.
Pp. 27181 in Eastern Orthodox Christianity and the Cold War, edited by
L. Leustean. London, England: Routledge.
. 2011. Eastern Orthodox Christianity and the Uses of the Past in Contem-
porary Greece. Religions 2:95113. Retrieved October 21, 2011 (http://www
.mdpi.com/20771444/ 2/2/95/).
. Forthcoming. Orthodox Christianity and Globalization in Eastern Chris-
tianity and Politics in the 21st Century, edited by L. Leustean. London, England:
Routledge.
Roudometof, Victor, Alexander Agadjanian, and Jerry Pankhurst, eds. 2005. East-
ern Orthodoxy in a Global Age: Tradition Faces the 21st Century. Walnut Creek,
CA: Alta Mira Press.
Roudometof, Victor and Irene Dietzel. Forthcoming. The Orthodox Church of Cy-
prus. In Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century, edited by
L. Leustean. London, England: Routledge.
Roudometof, Victor and Anna Karpathakis. 2002. Greek Americans and Transna-
tionalism: Religion, Class, and Community. Pp. 4154 in Communities Across
Borders: New Immigrants and Transnational Cultures, edited by P. Kennedy and
V. Roudometof. London, England: Routledge.
Roudometof, Victor and Vasilios N. Makrides, eds. 2010. Orthodox Christianity
in 21st Century Greece: The Role of Religion in Politics, Ethnicity and Culture.
Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
214 Bibliography
Roudometof, Victor and Michael N. Michael. 2010. Church, State and Politics in
19th Century Cyprus, Thetis 16/17:97104.
Rowland, Daniel. 1996. Moscow: The Third Rome or the New Israel? Russian
Review 55:591614.
Rowley, David G. 2011. Imperial Versus National Discourse: The Case of Russia.
Nations and Nationalism 6(1):2342.
Roy, Olivier. 2004. Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. London, England: Penguin.
Sarris, Neoklis. 1990. Ottoman Reality (2 vols.). Athens, Greece: Arsenidi (in Greek).
Schmidt, Volker H. 2006. Multiple Modernities or Varieties of Modernity? Cur-
rent Sociology 54(1):7797.
Scholte, Jan Art. 2000. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. London, England: Palgrave.
Scourby, Alice. 1984. Greek Americans. Boston, MA: Twayne.
. 1994. Ethnicity at the Crossroads: The Case of Greek America. Journal

of the Hellenic Diaspora 20(1):12333.
Sevcenko, Nancy F. 2006. Art and Liturgy in the Late Byzantine Empire. Pp.
12753 in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity,
edited by M. Angold. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sfekas, Stephen J. and George E. Matsoukas, eds. 1993. Project for Orthodox
Renewal: Seven Studies of Key Issues Facing Orthodox Christians in America.
Chicago, IL: Orthodox Christian Laity.
Shepard, Jonathan. 2006. The Byzantine Commonwealth, 10001500. Pp. 352
. 2008. General Introduction. Pp. 252 in The Cambridge History of the
Byzantine Empire, c. 5001492, edited by J. Shepard. Cambridge, England:
Sherrard, Philip. 1992. The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian
Tradition, 2nd ed. Limni, Greece: Denise Harvey.
Short, John Rennie. 2001. Global Dimensions: Space, Place and the Contemporary
World. London, England: Reaktion Books.
Shubin, Daniel H. 2004. A History of Russian Christianity. Vol. 1, From the Earliest
Years through Tsar Ivan IV. New York: Algora.
. 2005a. A History of Russian Christianity. Vol. 2, The Patriarchal Era
through Peter the Great, 1586 to 1725. New York: Algora.
. 2005b. A History of Russian Christianity. Vol. 3, The Synodical Era and the
Sectarians, 1725 to 1894. New York: Algora.
Simons, Greg. 2009. The Role of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia Since
1990. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell.
. 1998. Nationalism and Modernism. London, England: Routledge.
. 2001. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Sociology of Religion. 1999. Special Issue on Secularization Theory, 60(3). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Soltaridis, Simeon. 2006. Ecumenical PatriarchateConstantinople. Pp. 34671
in History of the Greeks, Vol. 18: Contemporary Greece, 19742006, 2nd ed.,
edited by I. A. Metaxas. Athens, Greece: Domi (in Greek).
Soulis, George C. [1954] 2007. Tsar Stephan Dusan and Mount Athos. Pp. 349
63 in The Expansion of Orthodox Europe, edited by J. Shepard. Aldershot, Eng-
land: Asghage/Valorium.
Spohn, Willfried. 2003. Multiple Modernity, Nationalism and Religion: A Global
Perspective. Current Sociology 51(3/4):26586.
Bibliography 215
Stackhouse, Max L. and Peter J. Paris, eds. 2000. God and Globalization: Religion
and the Powers of the Common Life. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International.
Stamatopoulos, Dimitrios. 2003. Reform and Secularization: Toward a Revision of
the History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Nineteenth Century. Athens,
Greece: Alexandria (in Greek).
. 2008/2009. The Bulgarian Schism Revisited. Modern Greek Studies Year-
book (24/25):10525.
Stan, Lavinia and Lucian Turcescu. 2007. Religion and Politics in Post-Communist
Romania. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Stavrakakis, Giorgos. 1999. In Ulysses Steps: Sociological and Historical Overview
of the Greek Immigration. Athens, Greece: Papazisi (in Greek).
Stavrakakis, Yannis. 2003. Politics and Religion: On the Politicization of Church
of Greece Discourse. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 21(2):15382.
Stavrianos, Lefteris. 1958. The Balkans Since 1453. New York: Harper and Row.
Stevenson, Paul. 2004. Byzantium Transformed, ca 9501200. Medieval Encoun-

ters 10(13):185210.
Stoianovich, Traian. 1994. The Balkan Worlds: The First and Last Europe. New
York: M. E. Sharpe.
Stokes, Gale. 1979. Church and Class in Early Balkan Nationalism. East European
Quarterly 13(3):25970.
Stokoe, Mark and Leonid Kishovski. 1995. Orthodox Christians in North
America 17941994. Syosset, NY: Orthodox Christian Publications Center
(OCPC) (available online at http://oca.org/history-archives/orthodox-christi
ans-na).
Strout, Cushing. 1963. The American Image of the Old World. New York: Harper
and Row.
Stylianopoulos, Reverend Theodore. 1997. Church Order in Orthodox Perspec-
tive (Governance). Pp. 2635 in The American Church and the Ecumenical
Patriarchate: Governance, Diaspora, Role of Women, edited by Orthodox
Christian Laity, Harvard Club of Boston, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School
of Theology (Hellenic College) and Maliotis Cultural Center. Minneapolis, MN:
Light and Life.
Sugar, Peter. 1977. Southeastern Europe Under Ottoman Rule. Seattle, WA: Univer-
sity of Washington Press.
Svoronos, Nicolaos. 1981. Histoire de la Grce Moderne. Athens, Greece: Themelio
(in Greek).
Sysyn, Frank. 1991. The Formation of Modern Ukrainian Religious Culture: The
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Pp. 122 in Church, Nation and State in
Russia and Ukraine, edited by G. A. Hosking. London, England: Palgrave
Macmillan in association with the School of Slavonic and East European Studies,
University of London.
. 2003. The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and the Tradi-
tions of the Kyiv Metropolinate. Pp. 2339 in Religion and Nation in Modern
Ukraine, edited by S. Plokhy and F. E. Sysyn. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Canadian
Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press.
Taft, Robert E. 2006. The Living Icon: Touching the Transcendent in Palaiologan
Iconography and Liturgy. Pp. 5461 in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261
1557), edited by S. T. Brooks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tataryn, Miroslav. 2001. Russia and Ukraine: Two Models of Religious Liberty
and Two Models for Orthodoxy. Religion, State and Society 29(3):15572.
Tavuchis, Nicolaos. 1972. Family and Mobility Among Greek Americans. Athens,
Greece: National Center of Social Research.
Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Harvard, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
216 Bibliography
Therborn, Goran. 1995. Routes To/Through Modernity. Pp. 12439 in Global
Modernities, edited by M. Featherstone, S. Lash, and R. Robertson. London,
England: Sage.
. 2000. Globalizations: Dimensions, Historical Waves, Regional Effects,
Normative Governance. International Sociology 15(2):15179.
. 2003. Entangled Modernities. European Journal of Social Theory
6(3):293305.
Todorova, Maria. 1997. Imagining the Balkans. Oxford, England: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Tomka, Mikls. 2006. Is Conventional Sociology of Religion Able to Deal with
Differences Between Eastern and Western European Developments? Social
Compass 53(2):25165.
Tonoyan, Lydia S. and Daniel P. Payne. 2010. The Visit of Patriarch Kirill to
Ukraine in 2009 and Its Significance in Ukraines Political and Religious Life.
Religion, State and Society (38)3:25364.

Torpey, John. 2010. A (Post-) Secular Age? Religion and the Two Exceptional-
isms. Social Research 77(1):26996.
Trepanier, Lee. 2007. Political Symbols in Russian History: Church, State, and the
Quest for Order and Justice. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Tsetsis, George. 1988. The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Foun-
dation of the World Council of Churches. PhD dissertation. Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Tsompanides, Stylianos. 2008. The Contribution of the Orthodox Church and The-
ology to the World Council of Churches. Thessaloniki, Greece: Pournaras (in
Greek).
Turcescu, Lucian and Lavinia Stan. 2003. ChurchState Conflict in Moldova:
The Bessarabian Metropolitanate. Communist and Post-Communist Studies
36:44365.
. 2010. The Romanian Orthodox Church and Democratization: Twenty
Years Later. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church
10(23):14459.
Turner, Bryant S. 2009. Reshaping the Sociology of Religion: Globalisation, Spiri-
tuality and the Erosion of the Social. Sociological Review 57(1):186200.
Tyerman, Christopher. 1998. The Invention of the Crusades. London, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
. [2006] 2007. Gods War: A New History of the Crusades. New York:
Penguin.
Tzortzatos, Varnava. 1977. The Subsumption of the Diasporic Greek Churches to
the Church of Greece and Its Revocation. Athens, Greece: n.p. (in Greek).
Valakou-Theodoroudi, Malamati. 2003. Political and Constitutional Aspects of the
New Lands Regime. Katerini, Greece: Epektasi (in Greek).
van den Bercken, William. 1999. Holy Russia and Christian Europe. East and West
in the Religious Ideology of Russia. London, England: SCM Press.
van der Veer, Peter. 2002. Transnational Religion: Hindu and Muslim Move-
ments. Global Networks 2(2):95109.
Voicu, Malina. 2011. Religiosity and Nationalism in Post-Communist Societies: A
Longitudinal Approach. Paper presented at the biannual meetings of the Interna-
tional Society for the Sociology of Religion, June 30July 3. Aix-en-Provence, France.
Volkov, Dmitro. 2005. Living Eastern Orthodox Religion in the United States. Pp.
22444 in Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age: Tradition Faces the 21st Century,
edited by V. Roudometof, A. Agadjanian, and J. Pankhurst. Walnut Creek, CA:
Alta Mira Press.
Vryonis, Speros, Jr. 1971. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the
Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century. Berkeley,
Bibliography 217
Walsh, Andrew. 2000. Fashioning an American Orthodox Identity: The Greek Or-
thodox Archdiocese of America. Paper presented at the Meetings of the Society
for the Scientific Study of Religion, October 1618, Houston, TX.
Walters, Philip. 2002. Notes on Autocephaly and Phyletism. Religion, State and
Society 30(4):35764.
Walzer, Michael. 1994. Thick and Thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Warburg, Margit. 2006. Citizens of the World: A History and Sociology of the
Bahai from a Globalization Perspective. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Ware, Kallistos. 1964. The Orthodox Church. London, England: Penguin.
. 2002. Old Calendarists. Pp. 123 in Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a
Plural Society, edited by R. Clogg. London, England: Hurst.
Warner, Catherine. 2010. Southern Challenges to Eastern Christianity: Pressures to
Reform the ChurchState Model. Journal of Church and State 52(4):64461.
Waters, Malcolm. 1995. Globalization. London, England: Routledge.
Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley,

Weber, Max. [1922] 1968. Economy and Society (2 vols.). Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Weir, Walter W. 1952. Education in Cyprus. Nicosia, Cyprus: n.p.
Whittow, Mark. 1996. The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 6001025. London,
England: Macmillan.
Willert, Trine Stauning and Lina Molokotos-Liederman, eds. 2012. Innovation in
the Orthodox Christian Tradition? The Question of Change in Greek Orthodox
Thought and Practice. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Wolff, Larry. 1994. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind
of the Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
. 2001. The Enlightenment and the Orthodox World. Athens, Greece: Insti-
tute for Neohellenic Research, National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Wolff, Robert L. [1949] 2007. The Second Bulgarian Empire: Its Origin and
History to 1204. Pp. 267306 in The Expansion of Orthodox Europe, edited by
J. Shepard. Aldershot, England: Asghage/Valorium.
Yannas, Prodromos. 2009. The Soft Power of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Medi-
terranean Quarterly 20(1):7793.
Yelensky, Viktor. 2010. Religiosity in Ukraine According to Sociological Surveys.
Religion, State and Society 38(3):213227.
Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. 2006a. The Great Church in Captivity, 14531586.
Pp. 16986 in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christian-
ity, edited by M. Angold. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
. 2006b. Mount Athos and the Ottomans, 13501550. Pp. 15468 in
The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5, Eastern Christianity, edited by
Zannetos, Filios. 1910. History of the Island of Cyprus, Vol. 1. Larnaca, Cyprus:
Philokalias (in Greek).
. 1911. History of the Island of Cyprus, Vol. 2. Larnaca, Cyprus: Philokalias
(in Greek).
Zernov, Nicolas. 1963. Eastern Christendom: A Study of the Origin and Devel-
opment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. London, England: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson.
Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1981. Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zolotas, Xenophon. 1926. Greece in the Stage of Industrialization. Athens, Greece:
National Bank of Greece (in Greek).
Zotos, Stephanos. 1976. Hellenic Presence in America. Wheaton, IL: Pilgrimage.

Globalization and Orthodox Christianity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization and Orthodox Christianity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization and Orthodox Christianity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization and Orthodox

In this book Roudometof offers a brilliant examination of the manifold

With approximately 200 to 300 million adherents worldwide, Orthodox

Victor Roudometof is Associate Professor in the Department of Social and

1 Judaism and Collective Life 10 Religion, Language, and Power

5 Metaphysics and Transcendence 14 Adam Smith as Theologian

6 Sufism and Deconstruction 15 The Entangled God

7 Christianity, Tolerance and 16 Aquinas and Radical

20 Popular Music in Evangelical 27 Religions in Movement

known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any

Maps by Sophia Vyzoviti

1 Globalization and Orthodox Christianity:

2 The Fragmentation of Christianity 18

3 From Christian Orthodoxy to Orthodox Christianity 38

5 Nationalism and the Orthodox Church:

6 Colonialism and Ethnarchy: The Case of Cyprus 102

7 Orthodox Christianity as a Transnational Religion 119

8 Territoriality, Globality and Orthodoxy 137

9 Religion and Globalization: Orthodox Christianity

2.1 The Eastern Roman Empire with border changes

2.1 The vernacularization of Chalcedonian Christianity 26

EC-PATR Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

judgment, advice and expertise on numerous occasions. My warm thanks

With approximately 200 to 300 million adherents worldwide, Orthodox

BEYOND THE CONVENTIONAL IMAGE

SHIFTING PARADIGMS: FROM

Although the study of religion was previously marginal to mainstream socio-

Reconsidering secularity remains a project high on the agenda of the socio-

them (quoted in Zernov 1963:66).

(1992:8) original statement, globalization is defined as the compression

alternative pathways result from the combinations of different historical

possibility of reconstructing, creating or recreating locality. In this sense, the

1. How has Orthodox Christianity become a religious tradition in the con-

globalized religion? Can we perceive it as a global religion?

PERIODIZATION AND THEMES

Berger (2005:441) suggests that throughout its history, Eastern Orthodoxy

tion to Orthodoxy and tracing the ways in which Orthodoxy responded to

among the Slavs. The creation of Church Slavonic, the establishment of a

of an Orthodox church correspond to colonial boundaries, thereby allowing

connected to their original mother church. Religious institutions perform

This chapter focuses on the emergence of a distinct religious tradition of

offers a key to understanding the historical trajectory of the Orthodox re-

BEYOND THE LEGACY OF ORIENTALISM

For several centuries, Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism did

Eastern Christianity is typically subdivided into the (Eastern) Oriental (also

bent on preserving the universal and correct Christian faith.

VERNACULARIZATION EAST AND WEST

As Therborn (2000:160) argues, vernacularization involved the rise of differ-

As the above quote shows, the ecclesiastical establishment assisted the

as the father of all other rulers (Gvosdev 2001:4445; Angold 2003:29;

Table 2.1 The vernacularization of Chalcedonian Christianity

Eastern Mediterranean Western Mediterranean

Multiple high primates Single high primate (the pope)

enjoys a special status vis--vis other churches because of the legacy of

Controversy. The controversy concerned the authority of feudal overlords

THE INDIGENIZATION OF CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY

The EastWest contest also was political. Conversion of non-Christians to

that constitute politically independent units connected state authority and

Table 2.2 Indigenizations of Christianity in the Eastern Mediterranean (3001589 AD)

Chalcedonian Churches Non-Chalcedonian Churches