For the Life of the World and the Social Ethos of the Holy and Great Council (Chantilly, October 7, 2026)

 

Rev. Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Throne Nicolas Kazarian, Ph.D.

Conference Paper

For the Life of the World and the Social Ethos of the Holy and Great Council.

International Conference on “The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (2016-2026): Assessment and Prospects”

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

Les Fontaines Conference Centre

Chantilly, France

Introduction

Great Lent 2020. This was the period when the document For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church was published. I remember that time vividly, as it coincided with the moment when the entire world was brought to a standstill by the COVID-19 pandemic. At one point, our committee received a question: whether there was still time to add a paragraph addressing what would ultimately become an unprecedented global health crisis.

Behind this question, however, there was perhaps an initial misunderstanding of what the document was intended to be—or perhaps a natural desire for reassurance that the Church might already have an answer to an entirely unknown phenomenon. Yet For the Life of the World, or FLOW as we have come to call it, was never intended, contrary to other such documents, to offer a ready-made or definitive response to particular social challenges. Rather, it seeks to provide a theological framework and a set of guiding principles for approaching difficult and evolving questions. In this sense, it continues and extends the historic work of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, inviting the Church to discern how the Gospel may be faithfully lived and articulated in the midst of the changing circumstances of the world.

As we reflect on the ten years that have passed since the convocation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church on the island of Crete in 2016, we can affirm with confidence that the Council’s relevance has not diminished. On the contrary, its significance has continued to mature, not least through the 2020 document For the Life of the World. In receiving and interpreting the decisions of the Holy and Great Council, For the Life of the World stands as a fruit of the Church’s enduring social witness throughout two millennia. At the same time, it is a document shaped by the particular historical circumstances of its time—a different era, with its own questions and challenges, to which we cannot simply return. Its enduring value, therefore, does not lie in providing definitive answers to every new social challenge, but in offering a theological framework through which the Church may continue to discern and articulate her witness in a changing world.

Since the publication of For the Life of the World in 2020, our world has not only suffered from a global pandemic, but has experienced successive geopolitical and economic shocks arising from the war in Ukraine to the conflicts in the Middle East and beyond. These crises have been amplified by an increasingly adversarial international political discourse and by the integration of social and digital media into virtually every facet of daily life. Together, these phenomena have contributed to a pervasive sense of polarization, isolation, and despair. His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew articulated this contemporary condition eloquently in July 2025, when he described a state of “globalized meaninglessness” that has become normative and endemic, in which “man ceases to be conceived as a relational being founded on a transcendent reality and is converted into an autonomous unity that claims his well-being at the expense of others and of the natural world.” At the same time, the rapid development and mass proliferation of artificial intelligence presents profound questions concerning the integrity of human personhood and the vocation of humanity to seek communion with God, with our neighbor, and with all creation. 

Given these circumstances, one might suppose that For the Life of the World, together with the documents of the Holy and Great Council upon which it builds, has become obsolete. I would suggest, however, precisely the opposite. These texts should be received as essential theological resources through which the Orthodox Church can continue to speak with wisdom and truth to the pressing questions of our time.

1. The Holy and Great Council and the Development of an Orthodox Social Ethos

The significance of For the Life of the World can only be understood within the broader context of the Holy and Great Council and the process of its reception. 

The Council’s Encyclical as well as Message and its document The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World are particularly important in this regard. They address questions concerning the dignity and freedom of the human person, human rights, peace, justice, the common good, the relationship between the Church and the wider world, and humanity’s responsibility toward creation. For the Life of the World, published four years later, develops many of these themes in a more systematic, comprehensive and almost liturgical manner.

This relationship is important for understanding what may be called the reception of the Holy and Great Council. Reception does not mean simply preserving the conciliar texts as historical documents. It implies their continued interpretation and application within the changing circumstances of the life of the Church and of the world.

In this sense, For the Life of the World represents an important fruit of the Council’s reception. Its preparation through a special commission of Orthodox scholars established in 2017 and under the leadership of Rev. Archdeacon John Chryssavgis, the contributions solicited from the various eparchies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and its subsequent reception by the Mother Church demonstrate a particular form of ecclesial and theological collective, if not synodal, discernment. Its translation into fourteen languages has further facilitated its reception within the wider Orthodox world.

The document should therefore not be approached as a definitive catalogue of Orthodox positions on every social question. The document deals with the following themes: a. Church in Public Square; b. The Course of Human Life; c. Poverty, Wealth & Civil Justice; d. War, Peace & Violence; e. Ecumenical Relations & Relations with Other Faiths; f. Orthodoxy & Human Rights; g. Science, Technology and the Natural World. Its importance lies rather in its method and theological orientation. It seeks to articulate a social ethos rooted in Scripture, the Fathers, the liturgical and ascetical tradition, and the Church’s understanding of the human person as created in the image and likeness of God.

This distinction is particularly important when considering the passage from the world of 2020 to the world of 2026. The document could not have anticipated the precise form and scale of the technological developments that have occurred since its publication. Nor could the Holy and Great Council, whose preparatory process began decades before the emergence of contemporary artificial intelligence, have addressed AI directly.

Yet the absence of an explicit treatment of artificial intelligence does not constitute a theological deficiency. The fundamental questions raised by AI are, in significant respects, questions that the Council and For the Life of the World already address: What is the human person? What is freedom? What is the common good? What are the responsibilities of human beings toward one another and toward creation?

The relevance of these documents consequently depends not upon their ability to predict technological and social developments, but upon the adequacy of their theological anthropology and social vision to illuminate new insights concerning how the Church is called to live out her prophetic and pastoral mission in thr world.

This is perhaps one of the most important lessons of the Council’s social ethos. The Church does not need to possess a predetermined answer to every future question. She needs the theological resources and ecclesial capacity to discern new questions faithfully.

2. A Social Ethos of Human Freedom and Dignity

Among the most significant challenges of the present moment is the rapid development and proliferation of artificial intelligence, particularly through large language models and other generative systems. AI is present everywhere.

The theological significance of these developments, however, extends far beyond the question of technological regulation. What is ultimately at stake is our very understanding of the human person, as other important ecclesial documents—such as Magnifica Humanitas in the Catholic Church—and several messages of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch remind us.

At the center of the Church’s spiritual and theological inheritance stands the affirmation that the human being is created “in the image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26–27). The dignity of the person is therefore not conferred by society, determined by economic utility, or dependent upon intellectual or technological capacities. It is intrinsic to human existence. A similar reflection could also be developed on the relationship between faith and science; however, our analysis will focus specifically on theological anthropology.

The Holy and Great Council speaks of human freedom as “one of God’s greatest gifts to the human being” (The Mission, par. 4). The text continues: “Freedom without responsibility and love eventually leads to the loss of freedom” (ibid.). For the Life of the World develops this anthropology further by emphasizing that true freedom is not merely the capacity to choose among alternatives. Rather, freedom is oriented toward the fulfillment of the human person’s proper end: communion with God. 

As the For the Life of the World states:

“True human freedom is more than the mere indeterminate power of individuals to choose what they wish to do or to own with as little interference from the state or institutional authorities as possible. It is the realization of one’s nature in its own proper good end, one’s ability to flourish in the full range of one’s humanity—which for the human person entails freely seeking union with God.” (For the Life of the World, par. 62).

True freedom is therefore not merely “negative liberty,” understood as unknown choice, but a positive freedom oriented toward the good, toward love, and ultimately toward theosis. Such an understanding has particular significance in the age of artificial intelligence. 

A technology may increase efficiency while simultaneously diminishing agency. It may provide access to information while weakening the capacity for judgment. It may facilitate communication while reducing genuine encounter. It may relieve human beings of certain forms of labor while also diminishing the practices through which patience, attention, memory, and responsibility are cultivated.

The Orthodox understanding of freedom therefore requires a more demanding evaluation of technological progress. Innovation is not, in itself, a moral good. Its value must be considered according to the ends it serves and the effects it has upon human persons and communities.

This principle is closely connected to the Church’s understanding of stewardship. For the Life of the World emphasizes that the Church must discern how the teachings of Scripture and the Fathers concerning the common good can be faithfully applied in contemporary circumstances, a task that requires both “discernment and patience.” (For the Life of the World, par. 34).

The central question, therefore, is not whether artificial intelligence is intrinsically good or evil, but whether its development and use remain ordered toward the dignity of the human person and contribute to the unveiling of the imago Dei. It is through this lens that we can now examine artificial intelligence in light of the Holy and Great Council and the documents that articulate its vision.

3. Toward an Orthodox Ethos of Artificial Intelligence

An Orthodox response to artificial intelligence should begin neither with technological enthusiasm nor with technological fear, but with the Church’s theological anthropology. In this respect, the documents adopted by the Holy and Great Council in Crete and For the Life of the World provide complementary foundations. The first articulates the Church’s vocation and witness in the contemporary world; the second develops the social and ethical implications of that vocation in relation to human dignity, freedom, science and technology, creation, and the common good.

For the Life of the World recognizes human dignity expressed through the language of human rights as the “inviolable uniqueness of every person” and establishing an ethical framework for fundamental agreements among peoples(§12). This insight has direct implications for AI. As artificial intelligence increasingly shapes employment, education, health care, access to information, and public life, the dignity and rights of the human person must remain normative. The Church must therefore raise questions of accountability, transparency, responsibility, and human agency. Who is responsible when an automated system causes harm? How can human dignity be protected when persons and their very lives are reduced to data sets, behavioral profiles, or predictive categories? These are not merely technical questions. They concern the ontological status of the human person as both a material and spiritual being.

At the same time, the Church should resist treating AI solely as a threat that must be mitigated. Technology is not inherently incompatible with Christian faith; the essential question is its orientation: toward what end is human technological capacity directed? The fundamental distinction is therefore between utility and wisdom. AI can process information, generate language, simulate conversation, and optimize decisions. Yet information is not wisdom, simulation is not communion, and optimization is not synonymous with the good. 

For Orthodoxy, wisdom is ultimately participation in truth and in the life of God. Human knowledge finds its fulfillment not in mastery, but in communion. This becomes particularly important as AI increasingly mediates how people encounter knowledge and one another. If technological convenience replaces learning, reflection, interpersonal encounter, and moral judgment, technological progress may conceal an impoverishment of human life.

“For the Orthodox Church, the ability to explore the world scientifically is a gift from God to humanity. However, along with this positive attitude, the Church simultaneously recognizes the dangers latent in the use of certain scientific achievements. She believes that the scientist is indeed free to conduct research, but that the scientist is also obliged to interrupt his research when it violates basic Christian and humanitarian values. According to St. Paul, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful (1 Cor 6:12)” (The Mission, par. 11.)

The Church’s contribution is therefore not uncritically endorse technological expertise alone, but to provide a theological horizon within which technology, and science as a whole, must be evaluated. The human being is not an discrete, autonomous unit, but a person whose existence is constituted through relationships—with God, with others, and with creation. His All-Holiness once emphasized that “implementation of artificial intelligence requires respect of individual dignity, safeguard of fundamental freedoms, and advancement of social equity.”

Here the social ethos articulated by the Holy and Great Council acquires its significance. The Council’s concern for justice, dignity, freedom, human rights, creation, and the common good flows from its ecclesiology and humanity’s vocation to participate in divine life. The Church approaches society not simply as an institution responding to social problems, but as the Body of Christ witnessing to the transformation of human existence.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Ten years after Crete, the significance of this work lies precisely in the Council’s capacity to generate further theological reflection. The Church cannot predict  the next pandemic or the next technological and social development, nor should she attempt to produce immediate answers to every new question. Her responsibility is instead to cultivate the discernment necessary to distinguish genuine human dignity from its technological challenges and substitutes.

The Holy and Great Council and For the Life of the World provide resources for making these distinctions because they begin from a vision of the human person grounded in the image and likeness of God, called to freedom in Christ and to communion with God, neighbor, and creation.

In this sense, the social ethos articulated by the Holy and Great Council remains profoundly relevant. The documents of Crete, together with For the Life of the World, should not be treated as conclusions to a theological discussion completed in 2016 or 2020. They constitute part of an ongoing process of ecclesial and synodal discernment, in the spirit of what Fr. Georges Florovsky once said: “The Church gives us not a system, but a key; not a plan of God’s city, but the means of entering it.” 

Thank you for your kind attention.