Orthodox Christianity and Humanitarianism: An Introduction to Thought and Practice, Past and Present

The past two decades have witnessed a sea change in the nature of the conversation and parameters of cooperation between the international policy community and religious or faith-based institutions¹ when it comes to humanitarian action. Positioned under the broad rubric of humanitarianism, this evolving religion-policy engagement has new ideas, vocabularies, and, above all, innovative and collaborative practices aiming to address urgent, global problems of poverty, social justice and equity, relief assistance and crisis response, and sustainable development. At its core, the evolving religion-policy nexus in humanitarianism acknowledges a simple yet profound reality: foundational human needs affecting the survival, dignity, and life-quality of the planet's estimated 7.3 billion people transcend geographic, faith, and ideological boundaries, and as such durable responses require input from stakeholders, actors, and constituencies from religious as well as non-religious spaces. As Michael Barnett and Janice Gross Stein characterize it, the process involves a “secularization and sanctification of humanitarianism” (Barnett and Stein 2012, 9).

Orthodox Christians worldwide are integral to the ethical and operational complexities of globalized humanitarianism. As a historical matter, the Orthodox Church has taken seriously its biblical commission to act as a transformative agent in the world, and the record of the Orthodox Church is replete with original, creative, and sustained activities that fit neatly within the intersecting social science and policymaking taxonomies of humanitarianism, human security, and development. Indeed, the Orthodox Church, in both early and medieval times, developed an impressive range of hospitals; shelters for orphans, widows, and widowers; hospices for the terminally ill with contagious diseases; and schools and libraries.

The plethora of systematic, institutionalized humanitarian initiatives that characterized the Christian Church² in the Eastern Roman Empire, from the 4^th century until its collapse with the Ottoman Turks’ capture of the imperial capital of Constantinople in the mid-15^th century, grew out of a rich set of theological teachings, highly theorized and using sophisticated discursive tropes and conceptual arguments. Orthodox thinkers dealt with issues as diverse as poverty, environmental stewardship and access to natural resources, peace, and war, and provided clear guidance and instructions for charitable and philanthropic action. The longue durée of the history of the Orthodox Church reveals a stock of ideas that has been characterized as “ … an ethic of sustainability” which identified a “baseline of [human] need … ” and, therefore, called on the Church in its fullness to “ … develop a new set of relationships, a new social order that both anticipates and participates in the creation of a ‘new heaven and new earth where justice dwells.’”³

Although the word humanitarianism is absent in Orthodox foundational teachings, especially in theological texts, numerous synonyms and equivalents, such as philanthropy, agape (as in fraternal love for fellow human beings), charity, and mercy appear frequently. In this regard, the development of theological concepts translatable into a discourse for practiced humanitarianism runs discernibly throughout the foundational teachings of the Orthodox faith. Liturgical and sacramental texts, as well as New Testament texts, are replete with narratives of the works by Jesus on behalf of the impoverished, infirm, and marginalized, and Christ's mandate to love and serve one's neighbor is a categorical call to conduct good works for humanity—for humanitarianism, in this regard. Liturgical and sacramental texts include prayers and hymns identifying the philanthropic dimensions of the divine, such as “For you are a good God who loves mankind,” “For you are the only merciful and loving God,” and “Oh, only loving and philanthropic God, glory to you.”⁴ These teachings make explicit the connection between salvific works and social transformation. Furthermore, the notion of “sacramental communion,” by which Orthodox communicants participate liturgically in the Eucharist as a reminder of God's “philanthropy,” creates the possibility for an understanding of philanthropy as a relational, collective act of sharing and communion. The belief that all people are created in the image of God (imago Dei) (Schaff and Wace 1994) leads to the notion of personal, ongoing transformation toward the likeness of God, or “theosis,”⁵ and supports the conviction that the mission of the Church involves the inextricable connection and integration of personal and social transformation in the divine image (Harakas 1990; Yannoulatos 2003).

The historical teachings and experiences of the Orthodox Church inform the pre-modern and modern approaches and concerns associated with the establishment of the Westphalian state order. Indeed, Orthodox Christians⁶ have been preoccupied with and committed to humanitarianism by virtue of a lived experience in some of the world's core conflict zones, and by virtue of having lived under pre-nation conditions defined by authoritarianism, despotism, and autocracy. Orthodox Christianity has become globalized over the last century or so, mainly via emigration from the geographic areas that Dimitri Obolensky and Paschalis Kitromilides have called, respectively, the Byzantine and Orthodox Commonwealth (Obelenski 1974; Kitromilides 2007) or “heartland”—mainly, the former Byzantine and Russian imperial lands stretching across the Middle East and East Africa, into Southeastern and Mediterranean Europe, and spanning Russia and the Caucasus—to North and South America, Western Europe, and Australia. With approximately 300 million members worldwide, the Orthodox Church is the third-largest Christian communion, and contains roughly 15 percent of the world's Christians.

Humanitarianism—whether understood as emergency relief, crisis response, or sustainable development—has been a continuing preoccupation for Orthodox Christians in early-modern and modern periods, based on their half-millennium experience as separate and unequal, if technically protected peoples of the book, under the Ottoman millet system; under persecution by state communist regimes in 20^th century Europe and Eurasia; and, through experiences as an endangered religious minority in the contemporary conflict zones of the Near East and East Africa and under authoritarian regimes stretching from Turkey through the Caucasus and Central Asia. Furthermore, Orthodox Christians are integral, whether as a demographic majority or minority, in the post-Soviet Bloc states of Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Southeastern Europe, and continue to face severe economic development and social cohesion challenges associated with the legacies of state socialism. Likewise, Greece, an Orthodox-majority country, has witnessed the Orthodox Church and local and transnational Orthodox non-governmental organizations struggle to provide humanitarian assistance to the country's population in the face of an economic crisis now entering its second half-decade. Domestic humanitarian problems of poverty, hunger, homelessness, collapsing medical care, and rising suicide rates have been immeasurably intensified by massive migration flows into Greece, which has become the frontline state of the European Union for refugees fleeing the Near East. The Orthodox Church in Cyprus also had an intensive experience in humanitarian need and crisis response during the mid 1970s when it helped provide shelter, food, transitional financial support, and counseling services to the more than 200,000 Christians displaced from Turkish-occupied Cyprus to the southern part of the island under the control of the Republic of Cyprus. Furthermore, the ecological vision and initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in the face of the chronic repression of Orthodox Christian communities by Turkey, has sensitized the international policymaking community to the capacity of Orthodox Christian actors to contribute to dialogue and partnerships that elucidate the linkages between humanitarianism, human security, international religious freedom, and sustainable development.

Simply put, as architects of conceptual rubrics, as agents of praxis, and as recipients of support, Orthodox Christians worldwide are part of the analytical, operational, ethical, and empirical debates and discussions that Michael Barnett and Thomas G. Weiss characterize as “contested humanitarianism” (Barnett and Weiss 2011). Yet, there is a significant lacuna regarding Orthodox Christianity in the emerging literature on religion and humanitarianism. A review of the leading works in the field reveals a remarkable absence of case studies and theoretical coverage of Orthodox Christianity in humanitarianism, human security, and development. As a response to this gap, we convened a colloquium that brought together practitioners and scholars in the spring of 2015, in order to explore the theological resources and institutional experiences of Orthodox Christianity in comparative contexts of humanitarianism. Organized under the auspices of the Department of Inter-Orthodox, Ecumenical, and Interfaith Relations of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, the colloquium asked the contributors to this journal to analyze historical and contemporary cases, as well as to mine theological texts and teachings of public intellectuals, towards the goal of providing an introductory collection dealing with Orthodox Christianity and humanitarianism.

In this regard, the colloquium was both a response to and inquiry into the notable gap regarding Orthodoxy—in the sense of both voice and subject—in social science and policy literatures on religion and humanitarianism. The essays take issue with the conventional narratives that reduce the role of religion to that of Western Christianity in the discourses, organizations, and international legal norms of humanitarianism in the 19^th and 20^th centuries and, more recently, as part of the human security paradigm in the late-20^th and early-21^st centuries (Wellman and Lombardi 2012). These standard treatments overlook historical reality and the current facts on the ground, as the essays in this collection substantiate, with rich treatments of the trajectory and types of Orthodox Christian engagement in humanitarian theory and praxis.

By the same token, the essays adopt an intentionally critical and reflective position, by asking contributors to consider: the deficits and limitations that account for the omission of Orthodox Christian cases in scholarship on religion and humanitarianism, as well as consequent remedies; the comparatively small footprint of Orthodox faith-based organizations systematically involved in humanitarianism; and, mechanisms by which Orthodox Christianity's personal, relational, and evangelical approach to humanitarianism can be more effectively integrated into scholarship and practitioner work on human needs. Ultimately, the colloquium and this set of essays are an effort to identify the ways in which Orthodox Christianity's rich stock of theological resources, historical experiences, and current operational activities may enrich and add value to the urgent humanitarian needs of our world. The collection aims to introduce Orthodoxy as part of a deeper conversation about the meaning and scope of religious contributions to humanitarianism.

Creating a Conversation

The aforementioned colloquium gave the contributors broad parameters for examining the topic of Orthodox Christianity and humanitarianism, and what emerges is an interesting combination of disciplinary approaches, scholar-practitioner accounts, and historical and contemporary treatments of the relationship between Orthodox teachings about humanitarianism and Orthodox engagement in humanitarianism.

The collection begins with Maxim Vasiljević’s articulation of a theological framework for Orthodox humanitarianism. Written from the vantage point of an episcopal hierarch and public intellectual in the Orthodox Church, the essay raises the fundamental question of the meaning of humanitarianism for Orthodox Christian thought and practice. Vasiljevic highlights the paradox inherent in the notable absence of the term “humanitarianism” in Orthodox Christian writings, given the preoccupation of Orthodox Christian teaching with the human person and the transformation of the human community and created order into a sacred image (Imago Dei) and likeness (theosis). Vasiljević addresses this paradox by offering a succinct vision of Orthodox humanitarianism rooted in Orthodox ecclesiology, Christology, and Trinitarian theology. Orthodoxy views the Church—the ecclesia—as the source and telos of humanitarianism. The view of the Church, however, is not one that limits humanitarian aid only to those within the confines of the Church, but envisions a “cosmic” Church, which includes all of God's creation. The potential for humanitarian work, therefore, is embedded in every person; consequently, undertaking and participating in humanitarian efforts helps to transform actor and recipient into humanitarian beings and into the fullness of their potential as persons. An Orthodox ecclesiological model for humanitarianism is premised on the movement of individuals from isolation to a relational personhood grounded on self-sacrifice. Vaisljevic explains that this transition from isolation to community is rooted in the Christological paradigm of self-sacrifice and the inter-personal reality of God as Trinity.

Timothy Miller and Susan Holman examine the longue durée of Orthodox thought and practice regarding humanitarianism, in the process, illustrating that the roots of Christian humanitarianism lie in the ancient Christian East, most notably, in patristic teachings of the 4^th century. Against John Locke's criticism of Christian humanitarian efforts, particularly regarding Locke's emphasis on rational-scientific rather than sacred-faith approaches to humanitarianism, Miller reviews Orthodoxy's contribution to humanitarianism by asking three fundamental questions: First, was there any validity in the Enlightenment criticism that Christian humanitarianism was restricted to fellow believers? Second, were Christian humanitarian efforts used as an evangelizing (or proselytizing) mechanism? Third, to what extent were the humanitarian efforts of Byzantine charitable programs measurably successful? Miller's article shows that Eastern Christian efforts to serve those in need were ecumenical and, therefore, not restricted to fellow Christians; moreover, such philanthropic efforts were not used as a tool for forced conversion; and lastly, Miller provides examples of measurable successes in the provision of humanitarian relief in the Christian East.

Similarly, Susan Holman's piece looks to ancient, Eastern (Orthodox) Christian sources, both biblical and patristic, to develop a more nuanced understanding of historical Orthodox notions of humanitarianism for contemporary praxis in diverse types of humanitarian action. Holman emphasizes methodologically the need to reflect upon such resources not merely as an exercise in history and theology, but more importantly, as the impetus and inspiration for effective social reform and societal transformation across historical timeframes and categories of “traditional” and “modern.” There is a constructively critical edge to Holman's essay piece for providers of humanitarianism, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike. More specifically, her argument illustrates the importance of language and terms used in the field of humanitarianism, particularly as this affects issues of trust-building and capacity at the local level. Most significantly, Holman describes Orthodox humanitarianism as an “ethics of aid,” which emphasizes social justice, human rights, civic or kinship obligations, charity, and virtue.

With concise introductions to Orthodox Christian theology, ancient history, and ethics, the articles by Alexandros Kyrou and Cyril Hovorun help to historicize the inquiry into Orthodox humanitarianism, in contexts of crisis and in a geographical space with salience for the historical diffusion of the Orthodox Church and for contemporary church-state relations. Kyrou examines the Greek Revolution, considering Orthodox distinctions between humanitarianism and interventionism in the responses of the Russian state and society to the 1821 Greek war for national independence from the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, insofar as the case involves the religious geography of Russian Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy, both historically rooted in the Orthodoxy of the Byzantine Empire, Kyrou's essay reveals important omissions in the literature on the history of humanitarianism, which has largely focused on Western Christianity as a critical antecedent to humanitarianism. Finally, Kyrou's analysis points to the efficacy of historical cases of transnational religious humanitarianism and to the need for greater scholarly attention to the linkages between geopolitics and religion.

Hovorun examines Orthodox humanitarianism vis-à-vis the political and diplomatic crisis involving the contemporary space of Russia and Ukraine. His essay explores the ongoing crisis in Ukraine through the prism of Orthodox Churches’ responses to, and implication in, the humanitarian crisis involving Russia and Ukraine. With a concise narrative of the events that led to the “Revolution of Dignity” and the Maidan reform movement in Ukraine, as well as Russia's response to those political and social events, Hovorun reminds us that churches were among the protagonists in the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Various Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches in Ukraine and Russia engaged in competing discourses and practices of human rights and humanitarianism that either reinforced or rejected secular, ethno-political ideologies. According to Hovorun, the politicization of religion, for purposes of providing a transcendent legitimacy designed to justify social cleavages and political—and eventually, military—conflicts, is indispensable to understanding the course of the crisis in Ukraine.

Finally, Pascalis Papouras’ essay introduces Orthodox Christian humanitarianism “2.0” by presenting the work of International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC), one of the largest and most active Orthodox Christian humanitarian organizations in the world. Papouras highlights Orthodoxy's transnational, post-national vision of humanitarianism through the work of IOCC. In particular, as a mission of the Church, IOCC is unable to subordinate its faith commitment to assist all people to the perceived interests of a particular constituency. Moreover, Papouras shows that Orthodox humanitarianism rejects all degrees of utilitarianism because, as an arm of the Church, it rejects any sacrifice of the greater good for the greatest number of people at the expense of others. IOCC, therefore, as an Orthodox Christian organization, is truly ecumenical and responds to the needs of all people. While IOCC's mission and vision share many things in common with other humanitarian organizations (faith-based and secular), there are disparities between it, as a faith-based organization, and state actors, multi-lateral state agencies, secular nongovernmental organizations, and private sector agencies. Finally, Papouras brings to light the ethos and methodology of Orthodox Christian humanitarianism by presenting three case studies: (1) The Palestinian context, which shows Orthodoxy's ability to transition its efforts from development to relief; (2) The Georgian context, which highlights development work in a rural context; and (3) a context of emergency response in a developed nation, which focuses on IOCC's capacity to work in those regions more often considered as the source of humanitarian emergency aid than as a recipient of such aid.

Lessons Learned

Beyond providing an introduction to the basic parameters—conceptual, operational, and contextual—of Orthodox humanitarianism, these essays analyze and elucidate the distinctive features of Orthodox humanitarianism, namely, those differentiated from other forms of sacred and secular humanitarianisms. In this regard, the collection provides scholars and practitioners with insights for improving both the typological formulation of and methodological approaches to humanitarianism, responding to questions about how “sacred aid” can affect the marked “bureaucratization, rationalization, and professionalization” of the humanitarian space in contemporary times (Barnett and Stein 2012, 188–189).

In broad theological terms, this collection makes clear that Orthodox humanitarianism is a manifestation of the idea of and participation of the ecclesia in the world. Firmly grounded in the Church's Christological and Trinitarian doctrines, Orthodox humanitarianism represents an expression of sacramental and communal existence. In this regard, Orthodox humanitarianism is simultaneously inward and outward looking in its mission, but is consistently universalist in terms of its focus on the recipients of humanitarianism. By assisting all people—including those beyond the formal faith community of the ecclesia—Orthodox humanitarianism reflects the salvific mission of the Church. For decades, the commitment to ecumenical theological dialogue has been quite pronounced in the Orthodox Church (Kinnamon and Cope 1997, 11–14; Papademetriou 2011).⁷ Several of the case studies also reveal the significant ecumenical and inter-faith features of Orthodox humanitarian relief, given that, in most cases, those receiving aid include non-Orthodox Christians and non-Christians. Indeed, the case studies cover emergency relief in instances of communal and sectarian violence,⁸ as in the Middle East and Ukraine, development aid, as in African contexts, and humanitarian support and philanthropic assistance in pre-state experiences of empire and national liberation struggles.⁹

The essays present a fascinating collage of the historical evolution of a wide range of types and conditions related to the engagement of Orthodox Churches, non-governmental organizations, and other institutional entities under the rubric of humanitarianism. Informing all of these cases is a faith commitment to address the needs of all peoples, based on the notion of Imago Dei, with the uncompromisingly relational conception of human anthropology that is particular to Orthodox theological teachings.

Although the essays indicate the global footprint of the Orthodox Church, the cases underscore the importance of local, grassroots efforts in assessing and delivering humanitarian assistance. Particularly notable is the contrast between Orthodox emergency and crisis agencies that have transnational scope and composition, on the one hand, and the plethora of local associations, parishes, and educational entities that engage in development aid under Orthodox institutional auspices; on the other hand, Orthodox Churches and other organizations still face a steep learning curve when it comes to global scope and capacity for delivery, but the essays indicate a recognition by Orthodox actors of such constraints. Orthodox Churches and NGOs and local communities are partnering with other secular and faith-based NGOs and, concomitantly, are deliberately mining and relying on the organic strengths of Orthodox theology as a socially transformative and locally contextualizable endeavor that deploys local volunteers and institutions.

Finally, the essays highlight the importance of different epistemic approaches to humanitarianism. Orthodox Christian teaching rarely mentions “humanitarianism” when discussing its work to alleviate suffering in the world, and it rarely speaks about “development” when discussing those efforts to ensure long-term positive consequences. Indeed, until quite recently, Orthodox thinkers and practitioners have given limited systematic attention to the conceptualization of humanitarianism within social science and practitioner frameworks of development aid and activity. The overwhelming focus on theological language and constructs has begun to shift to a new, hybridized language and, consequently, effective and innovative praxis, catalyzed by the works of IOCC. In this regard, the distinctive ideas and glocal practices of Orthodoxy regarding humanitarianism are becoming more fully integrated into research and action on religion and humanitarianism.

By the same token, the absence of the terminology of secular humanitarianism from Orthodox discourses that, indeed, support humanitarian activities presents an interesting challenge for those involved in the efficacious delivery of humanitarian assistance. Specifically, Orthodox Christianity recognizes the importance of contextualization when it comes to the capacity for constructive engagement between providers and recipients of humanitarianism. For humanitarian organizations in predominately Orthodox Christian contexts, integrating theological and ecclesiastical concepts into the vocabulary of relief and development increases the potential for trust and synergy in both process and outcome. There is a broader message from an Orthodox hermeneutic of humanitarian action—namely, that the strict division between secular and religious when it comes to practices of humanitarianism, as well as the failure to appreciate the negative effects of paternalistic signifiers associated with defining humanitarianism as a “modern” enterprise, aggravates the politicization of humanitarianism and undermines the effectiveness of humanitarian initiatives.

Given the significance of faith-based NGOs in the architectures of humanitarianism, as well as the monumental, urgent needs which humanitarians confront, our aim is that this collection on Orthodoxy and humanitarianism helps to expand, correct, and augment the evolving state of knowledge and practice in the broader space of religion and humanitarianism in international relations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elizabeth H. Prodromou

Elizabeth H. Prodromou is Visiting Assoicate Professor of Conflict Resolution at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Her research focuses on religion, security, and democracy in the Middle East and Southeastern Europe. She has written extensively on Orthodox Christianity and geopolitics and on international religious freedom. She served as Commissioner and Vice-Chair on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom from 2004–2012.

Nathanael Symeonides

Nathanael Symeonides is the Director of the Department of Inter-Orthodox, Ecumenical, and Interfaith Relations of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, which helps coordinate the Church's national and international humanitarian efforts. He is a guest lecturer of Orthodox theology, ethics, bioethics, and public health, and has authored a series of works in the field of Orthodox Christian bioethics. He is a Greek Orthodox priest and serves the needs of parishes in New York City.

Notes

1. Sections of this introduction are adapted from the “Concept Note for the Colloquium on Orthodox Christianity and Humanitarianism: Ideas and Action in the Contemporary World,” convened by the Department of Inter-Orthodox, Ecumenical, and Interfaith Relations of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. See Elizabeth H. Prodromou, “Concept Note for the Colloquium on Orthodox Christianity and Humanitarianism: Ideas and Action in the Contemporary World” http://humanitarianism.goarch.org/.

2. As I have written elsewhere (Prodromou 2004), the contemporary Orthodox Church is often called the “Greek Orthodox” or “Eastern Orthodox” Church to distinguish it from the Western (or Latin) Christian tradition, to which both Roman Catholicism and most forms of Protestantism belong. The Orthodox Church traces its origins to the early Apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ and points to this Apostolic Succession as a sign of Orthodoxy's theological legitimacy and historical continuity. However, during the first millennium, terms such as “Eastern,” “Greek,” “Roman,” “Catholic,” were seldom (if ever) used, and instead, theologians, historians, and Christians as a whole, spoke about “the Church;” notwithstanding a number of divisions and fragmentation within the Church throughout history, there was an actual and perceived sense of relative unity between Christians living in the Eastern and Western regions of the Roman Empire, with the complementary territorial-ecclesiastical jurisdictions corresponding to the Empire's administrative division since the latter part of the third century. Yet, the divergences and tensions between the theological, cultural, and political entities of “Greek East and Latin West” (Sherrard 1959; Geanakoplos 1976; Louth 2007) are well documented. Therefore, “The Great Schism” between Western and Eastern Christendom, which occurred with a formal exchange of anathemas and condemnations between Rome's Papal Legate, Cardinal Humbert, and Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1054, established the first major fracture within Christendom. The Orthodox Church can be conventionally understood as standing on one side of that fault line, with the Roman Catholic Church standing on the other. The theological culmination of centuries of political-economic and cultural divergence between Eastern and Western spaces of historical “Christendom” is the historical backdrop to the present moment in which the Churches of Rome and Constantinople consider each other “Sister Churches,” that is, they see each other as two members of the same body, albeit not in full sacramental communion.

3. These quotes are drawn from C. Paul Schroeder's commentary on the works of Basil of Cappadocia, whose writings and public homilies on social justice are foundational in contemporary Orthodox engagements in humanitarianism. See Schroeder 2009, 26–37.

4. In the original Greek text, ϕιλάνθροπος (philanthropos) is specifically used to describe God's care for the world. Unfortunately, English translations fail to capture the fullness of the word and often use terms such as “loving” or “philanthropic.” For examples of liturgical expressions of philanthropy see Contos and Kezio 1996.

5. The term theosis, literally “becoming God,” captures the essence of the Orthodox Christian faith in that it refers to the profound communion that exists between God and humanity/world with the birth of Jesus Christ. Saint Athanasius summarizes this theological tenet when he says, “God became man so that man can become like God.” In their daily lives, communicants experience this through the Eucharist; through Holy Communion, people enter into communion with God, with each other, and therefore become like God—communal beings. For further reading on the notion of theosis and the relationship between the transformation of the self and the transformation of the world, see Finlan and Kharlamov 2006; Kharlamov 2011.

6. We use the term Orthodox to include Chalcedonian (Orthodox) and non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) Christians. Non-Chalcedonian Christians, often referred to as Oriental Orthodox Christians, constitute a majority in Armenia as well as numerically, economically, or politically significant minorities in Ethiopia, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt (where they are known as Copts or Jacobites). Theological distinctions aside, the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches share ecclesiastical structures, liturgical practices, foundational historical experiences, and, most importantly for the purposes of this collection of essays, support similar understandings of humanitarianism.

7. In 1920, the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued, “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere,” calling for mutual respect and dialogue between the Churches. This encyclical is generally considered one of the important factors that led to the formation of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1948. Moreover, Orthodoxy has engaged in dialogue with other faith traditions since antiquity, especially with Islam. For a comprehensive overview of Orthodoxy's engagement with Islam, see Papademetriou 2011.

8. See presentations by Janjic and Veronis: http://humanitarianism.goarch.org/videos.

9. See presentation by Metropolitan Makarios of Kenya: http://humanitarianism.goarch.org/videos.