Since I’m invested in PhD research on the topic of the Theology of Work and Manual Labor from 2010-2012, I though it might be helpful to others with a similar interest to share my bibliography as I go along. In my doctoral research, I’m quite keen to address some gaps in theological writing on work, and so I’ve pursued a particular focus on the subject of work in biblical studies and biblical theology. I’ll start with some of the major works of the twentieth-century that scholars are (still) responding to, and follow with some particular selections that may be a bit less mainstream.

In the meantime, please drop me a comment or email if you see something I’m missing or if you have feedback to share on any of the works I’ve got presented here, and thanks for checking the page out!
Index
1. Major post-war theological reflection on human work and labour (1948-2000)
2. Major pre-modern Christian sources for the theology of work
3. Contemporary Theological Reflection (2000-)
4. Biblical Critical Research and Biblical Theology of Work
5. Surveys and Bibliographies
6. Relevant Non-Religious Critical Reflection on Labour

Note: I will arrange works chronologically in most cases, with most recent publications at the top of each section and then others in descending order. On occasion, where the bibliography is particularly lengthy, I’ll place major works which deal directly with the topic in a significant and sustained way at the top so that they don’t escape your notice.

1. Major Post-War Texts in the Theology of Work

A. Joseph Pieper, Leisure : the Basis of Culture. First published, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1948. Original publication: Muße und Kult. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1948. [See the extensive treatment of this work in John Hughes, The End of Work, “Chapter 6″ (below)]. WorldCat•LibraryThing•Google Books•BookFinder

B. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/4: The Doctrine of Creation: The Command of God the Creator, §53 “Freedom Before God, The Holy Day” (1951).
_______. Church Dogmatics IV/2: Doctrine of Reconciliation: Jesus Christ the Servant As Lord, §65 “The Sloth And Misery Of Man”
_______. Church Dogmatics IV/2, §66 “The Sanctification of Man”

See commentary:

• Gordon Preece, ‘Barth’s Theology of Work and Vocation for a Postmodern World’, in Geoff Thompson and Christiaan Mostert (eds.), Karl Barth: A Future for Postmodern Theology? (Adelaide: Australian Theological Forum, 2000) and The Viability of the Vocation Tradition in Trinitarian, Credal, and Reformed Perspective : The Threefold Call. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998, chapters 4-5.
• John Hughes, End of Work (see below), pp. 11-15

C. Dom Rembert Sorg, Holy Work, 1951 [Review]

D. Marie-Dominique Chenu, The Theology of Work: An Exploration (Dublin: Gill and Son, 1963).

E. Laborem Exercens and Roman Catholic Social Teaching

Because the twentieth century legacy of theological reflection on work is one area in which the threads of Roman Catholic and Protestant thought tend to converge and cross paths, I hesitate to categorize works in this bibliography. One exception is for the legacy of Roman Catholic social thought which begins with “Rerum Novarum” by Leo XIII (1891) and has found its most recent expression in “Laborem Exercens” by John Paul II (1981). There are distinctions between the two approaches, but JP-II goes to great lengths to demonstrate how his reflection is in continuity with what preceded him. Both encyclicals can be found with critical summary and introduction in:

Charles, Rodger. The Modern Social Teaching: Contexts, Summaries, Analysis. Christian social witness and teaching: the Catholic tradition from Genesis to Centesimus Annus 2. Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing, 1998.

F. Volf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit : Toward a Theology of Work. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. [Review]
Volf’s book serves as one of the primary reference points for most contemporary Protestant studies in the theology of work. He draws a great deal on the work of his teacher Jürgen Moltmann. Along these lines see:

Moltmann, Jürgen. “Sinn Der Arbeil.” In Recht Auf Arbeit, Sinn Der Arbeit. München: Kaiser, 1979.

Other relevant works by Volf include:

Volf, Miroslav. “Human Work, Divine Spirit, and New Creation : Toward a Pneumatological Understanding of Work.” Pneuma 9, no. 2 (1987): 173-193.
———. “On Human Work : An Evaluation of the Key Ideas of the Encyclical Laborem Exercens.” Scottish Journal of Theology 37, no. 1 (1984): 65-79.
———. “Work and the Gifts of the Spirit.” In Christianity and Economics in the Post-Cold War Era. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

2. Major Pre-modern Christian Sources for the Theology of Work
Stay tuned for more here…

3. Contemporary Theological Reflection (2000-)
Cosden, Darrell. A Theology of Work: Work and the New Creation. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004. [Review]

Jensen, David Hadley. Responsive Labor : A Theology of Work. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Hughes, John. The End of Work: Theological Critiques of Capitalism. Illuminations: theory and religion. Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
3. Contemporary Non (or just less) Academic Theological Reflection (2000-)
For an exhautive list, see: Hammond, Pete, R Paul Stevens, and Todd Svanoe. The Marketplace Annotated Bibliography : A Christian Guide to Books on Work, Business & Vocation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002. This survey of marketplace theology, includes mostly non-academic reflection within the Protestant vocation tradition. It is startling and intructive to see how many books have been published in the past several decades on the subject. I highlight several exemplary examples (some are lay-oriented versions of the above):

Schuurman, Douglas J. Vocation : Discerning Our Callings in Life. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2004.

Cosden, Darrell. The Heavenly Good of Earthly Work. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.

Reed, Esther D. Good Work : Christian Ethics in the Workplace. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010.

4. Biblical Critical Research and Biblical Theology of Work
A. Broad Surveys

Geoghegan, Arthur Turbitt. The Attitude Towards Labor in Early Christianity and Ancient Culture. Washington, D.C., The Catholic university of America press, 1945.

B. Old Testament Studies

Jackson, John Robert. Enjoying the Fruit of One’s Labor: Attitudes Toward Male Work and Workers in the Hebrew Bible. PhD Dissertation: Duke University, 2005.

Aberbach, Moshe. Labor, Crafts, and Commerce in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1994.

Cahnman, W. “Role and Significance of the Jewish Artisan Class.” The Jewish journal of sociology (1965): 207.

Davis, Ellen F. “Slaves or Sabbath-Keepers: A Biblical Perspective on Human Work.”83, no. 1 (2001): 25-40.

Mendelsohn, I. “Guilds in Ancient Palestine.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research , no. 80 (1940): 17-21.

Safrai, S, M Stern, D Flusser, and W C van Unnik. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 1974.

Wischnitzer, M. A History of Jewish Crafts and Guilds. Jonathan David Publishers, 1965.

Sulzberger, Mayer. The Status of Labor in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Dropsie University Press, 1923.

C. New Testament Studies

i. Surveys

Agrell, Göran. Work, Toil, and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking Into Consideration Views Found in the Old Testament, Intertestamental, and Early Tabbinic Writings. Translated by Stephen Westerhold. Lund, Sweden: Verbum, Håkan Ohlssons, 1976.

ii. Jesus and the Gospels

iii. Paul and Manual Labor

Alexander, Loveday. “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing.” Novum Testamentum 28, no. 1 (1986): 48-74.

Ascough, Richard S. “The Thessalonian Christian Community As a Professional Voluntary Association.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 2 (2000): doi:thessalonian.

Barclay, John M G. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26, no. 3 (2004): 363-366.

Bruce, F F. “The New Testament and Classical Studies.” New Testament Studies 22, no. 03 (1976).

———. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press ; Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 2000.

Deissmann, Adolf. Paul; A Study in Social and Religious History. 2nd ed. New York, Harper, 1957.

Engels, Donald W. Roman Corinth : An Alternative Model for the Classical City. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990.

Friesen, Steven J. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26, no. 3 (2004).

Furnish, Victor Paul. “On Putting Paul in His Place.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113, no. 1 (1994): 3-17.

Hock, R F. “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 4 (1978): 555-564.

Hock, Ronald F. The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry : Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

———. “The Workshop As a Social Setting for Paul’s Missionary Preaching.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41, no. 3 (1979): 438-450.

Hock, Ronald F. “Paul and Greco-Roman Education.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.

Judge, E. A.. “St. Paul and Classical Society.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 15 (1972): 19-36.

Knust, Jennifer Wright. “2 Thessalonians and the Discipline of Work.” In Asceticism and the New Testament. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

———. Paul and the Thessalonians : The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

Martin, Dale B. “Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 59, no. 3 (1991): doi:tongues.

Meggitt, Justin J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Studies of the New Testament and its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul : A Critical Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Silva. “Eran, Pues, De Oficio, Fabricantes De Tiendas.” Estudios Biblicos 24 (1965): 123-134.

Still, Todd D. “Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 4 (2006): 781-795.

Szesnat, Holger. “What Did the Skēnopoios Paul Produce?” Neotestamentica 27 (1993): 391-402.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Winter, Bruce W. “”If a Man Does Not Wish to Work…” A Cultural and Historical Setting for 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16.” Tyndale Bulletin 40, no. 2 (1989): 303-315.

———. Seek the Welfare of the City : Christians As Benefactors and Citizens. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans ; Carlisle, Cumbria : Paternoster Press, 1994.

Wood, Edwin Jackson. United States — Texas: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995.

Zahn. Die Apostelgeschichte Des Lukas. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Leipzig and Erlangen: Deichert, 1921.

5. Surveys and Bibliographies
Lacoste, Jean-Yves. “Work: A. Historical Theology.” In Encyclopedia of Christian Theology. Edited by Jean-Yves Lacoste. Routledge, 2005, pp. 1729-1732. Short but remarkably insightful survey of Christian reflection on work. Very highly recommended reading.

Calhoun, Robert. “Work and Vocation in Christian History.” In Work and Vocation, a Christian Discussion. Edited by John Oliver Nelson. New York: Harper, 1954. Helpful companion to Lacoste as Calhoun offers a survey from a Protestant perspective at the mid-point of the twentieth century.

Michaelsen, Robert S. “A Bibliography on Work and Vocation.” In Work and Vocation, a Christian Discussion. Edited by John Oliver Nelson. New York: Harper, 1954. Lightly annotated, but nonetheless extremely useful bibliography. Covers primary sources of historical relevance and the contemporary scene (in 1954).
5b. Surveys, Dissertations, and Bibliographies on ‘Vocation’
From the beginning, a hallmark of Protestant thought has been the notion of ‘vocation.’ Given the prominence of this tradition, most of the works surveyed in 1-2 above have critical comments regarding the viability and consequences of this tradition, and so I offer this special section here to highlight surveys and theses focused on the notion of Vocation.

You absolutely need to start with the magisterial survey by Karl Holl, translated by Heber F. Peacock for Review & Expositor. As Calhoun rightly notes, Holl deals somewhat hastily with patristic and early medieval thought in his enthusiasm for the Protestant vocation tradition. Better attention to the patristic materials can be appreciated in the survey by Lacoste listed above.

Holl, Karl. “History of the Word “Vocation” (Beruf).” Review & Expositor 55, no. 2 (1958): 126-154.

Preece, Gordon R. The Viability of the Vocation Tradition in Trinitarian, Credal, and Reformed Perspective : The Threefold Call. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998. Preece’s work is not strictly historical theology, but rather a systematic work, offering a critical appropriation of Barth, but he nonetheless provides a good deal of critical background.

6. Relevant Non-Religious Critical Reflection on Labour
There are several surveys that provide a good starting point. These can direct you to other resources, or at least get your appetite whetted to the possibilities:

Karl Marx, Capital

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic

R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches

Please note: I’m trying to keep this bibliography synchronized with a few different social networked outlets. For those who are interested, you can see the research group on Mendeley, CiteULike Group, Connotea, Academia research interest, and Worldcat Bibliography. One of my favorite theologians is Metropolitan John D. Zizioulas, and I’m certainly not alone in appreciating his insights. I find especially, as I come from the Protestant evangelical tradition, that much of his presentation of Eastern Orthodox Christian doctrine is challenging in helpful ways to my own doctrinal presuppositions. I’ve spend quite a bit of time writing a masters thesis on Zizioulas and exploring his work as a resource for ecological ethics and as a result I’ve got some resources to share. Below I’m going to include a working (and annotated) bibliography of his work, which can hopefully aid other in their research on his work. Also included is some summary of secondary sources dealing with his work and some introductory comments for those first encountering Zizioulas’ work.

1. How to get started with Metropolitan John
By way of introduction and in an attempt to categorize Zizioulas I would suggest that there are three different levels of theological writing, all three (I would argue) quite necessary! They are: 1) Technical systematics (i.e. theologians writing for other theologians) 2) Conceptual theology (i.e. theologians writing for pastors and theologically trained laypeople) 3) Applied theology (i.e. the universal audience – writing for everyone) John Calvin started in the third category and as he revised the institutes gradually worked his way up towards (1). Zizioulas usually falls into categories 1 and 2. He writes often in very technical language, and enters into existing theological conversations (like “personhood”) which have a very complicated background including both contemporary and historical theological work. He assumes in his writing that the reader is familiar with the resources he has learned from and is drawing on (i.e. Maximus the confessor, and Georges Florovsky, for example) without providing an explanation for the uninitiated. This is good, in his case, as if this background were included… a 20 page essay would become a 400 page book! It is also the case that Zizioulas’ work gets quoted and studied in category 1 work by other theologians. I don’t introduce these categories to suggest that there is a hierarchy of audiences, or any other such thing, but rather to warn the reader (whether they have theological training or not) that in approaching Zizioulas work, one should be prepared to do some background reading, and then read the essay again, and again, and again! With this in mind, I would suggest that the reader first coming to Zizioulas’ work do some homework up front.

• Douglas Knight (a “Zizioulas approved” theologian) has written an excellent introduction to his work in Lectures in Christian Dogmatics (2009). Knight surveys Zizioulas’ approach to theology in broad contour and provides a helpful survey of how various commitments bear out over the whole of theological reflection.
• Cambridge University Press has just published an excellent Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology which has several chapters which are relevant to Zizioulas. In seeking to understand the present problems faced by the Orthodox church and the issues towards which Zizioulas is (often implicitly) writing, check out the Introduction, “Who Are the Orthodox Christians? A Historical Introduction.”
• In the same volume, also check out Chapter 12 “The Patristic Revival and its Protagonists” to get a feel for Zizioulas’ theological method and in particular his use of early Christian theology.
• Finally, for a longer treatment of Zizioulas, check out just about anything by Aristotle Papanikolaou. He presents by far the most sensitive readings of Zizioulas that I’ve encountered (along with Douglas Knight and Paul McPartlan).

2. About Zizioulas’ Writing
I’ll include a full annotated bibliography below, but it also bears mention that Zizioulas’ writing doesn’t fit into the typical publishing academic pattern. The major reason for this, I suspect, is the fact that he has been a theological teacher, churchman (very actively involved in the ecumenical work of the Orthodox church) and for the past several decades bishop. As a result, most of his published work, except for his doctoral dissertation, consists of essays, journal articles, and collections of essays. The only full length monograph, “Lectures in Christian Dogmatics” is a transcription of his Theology Course and thus not originally a book in the strict sense. He is certainly systematic in his approach, always keeping the major categories and the whole scope of the Christian life and belief in mind when he writes, but most of the articles have an occasion or a problem that they’re written for specifically. This is helpful to keep in mind when reading Zizioulas.

3. Biography of Zizioulas
(Note: This is an excerpt from my master’s thesis, meant to briefly introduce Zizioulas’ life and approach with a brief biography) Three themes intertwine in Zizioulas’ biography: (1) integrative academic theology bringing together reflection that is historical, theological, and biblical, (2) distinctive deployment for his church, and (3) ecumenical rapport. Though much of Zizioulas’ written work has not been available in English until fairly recently, his work both as a theologian and churchman has spanned nearly a half-century. His academic career began with study at the Universities of Thessalonika and Athens in 1950, and then a year at the ecumenical Institute of Bossey in 1955. Between 1960 and 1964 Zizioulas did doctoral research under Georges Florovsky, Chair of Eastern Church History at Harvard and a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. This move to Harvard by Zizioulas marked the start of a vibrant interaction with Western Christianity which has continued to the present day. Zizioulas took up a post at the University of Athens in 1964 as Assistant Professor of Church History, and returned “Westward” six years later, working as Professor of Patristics at the University of Edinburgh from 1970 until he took up a post as Professor of Systematic Theology at Glasgow in 1973. Just over a decade later Zizioulas published his first major monograph, Being as Communion (1985), and shortly thereafter became Metropolitan of Pergamon (1986). In the same year, he assumed a full time academic post at Thessaloniki School of Theology as Professor of Dogmatics. Throughout this academic career, Zizioulas has demonstrated his commitment to dogmatics not as free-standing discourse, but as providing resources for the church. Much of his written work has aimed to clarify the theological backdrop informing church life, centering particularly on the place of the Eucharist and the bishop.*1* Thus prior to BC, many of his articles were written for ecumenical forums in which he participated frequently.*2* Along these lines, Volf suggests that “Zizioulas’s most important publications have originated within the framework of his ecumenical activity, or his ‘principal vocation’; their goal is to provide new impulses for the ecumenical dialogue between East and West.”*3* Of particular note was his appointment as delegate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the central committee of the World Council of Churches in 1975. All of the various facets of Zizioulas’ work reflect a fundamental attempt to express the particular heritage of Eastern Orthodox theology in a way which enables participation in ecumenicism, an effort which laid the grounds for his encounter and subsequent friendship with Colin Gunton. As a result, it is not only productive to enact a conversation between Gunton and Zizioulas, but also relevant to ask “Protestant questions” of Zizioulas, given an amply substantial reading of his work. One other element of Zizioulas’ work in the church, which is not often noted, is his extensive involvement in advocacy and teaching regarding creation care. His writing has been instrumental in shaping Orthodox positions on ecology and the environment, and he has been featured numerous times as a keynote speaker for Religion, Science & the Environment. As mentioned, one practical outcome sought in this thesis will be to draw greater attention to this focus in his work, and its explicitly theological impetus.

Zizioulas’ Theological Method: Neo-Patristic Synthesis
One commendable feature of Zizioulas’ work is his consistency in both method and thematic emphasis throughout his career. Aristotle Papanikolaou observes how the framework for a synthetic project, relying particularly on patristic sources, emerges early in Zizioulas’ dissertation, EBC. This patristic resoursement carries through consistently in later works, BC and CO.*4* These emphases arise in some part out of an Orthodox project initiated by his teacher, Georges Florovsky (who partially supervised EBC). In his work, Florovsky called for a “Neo-patristic synthesis” in response to the perceived influence of Western scholastic methods in the Orthodox Church. This new synthesis was intended to draw on historically Eastern patristic theologians, reviving their way of doing theology (and theological emphases) for use in a contemporary context. A quick survey of Zizioulas’ work to date reflects a faithful commitment to this call.*5* One consequence of his steady reliance on patristic sources is a thematic consistency, as, following the patristic legacy, method and theological themes interpenetrate. Papanikolaou again affirms how in addition to a commitment to patristic sources, EBC also contains “much of what would later be hallmarks of his thought.” Zizioulas’ emphasis in theological themes follows an emphasis in theological sources. In his analysis, this primarily includes:

An attention to historical sources especially that of the early Christians, the centrality of the Eucharist for theology, a christological ecclesiology, a pneumatologically conditioned Christology, an understanding of personhood, the importance of eschatology…*6*

While it lies outside the scope of this thesis to fully explicate Zizioulas’ carefully nuanced presentation of each of these themes, they will (as might be expected) consistently feature in his writing on the imago Dei. This is the case in part because, for Zizioulas, theological themes themselves also interpenetrate, and any study of his doctrinal work cannot take one doctrine in isolation.*7*

On Zizioulas’ Method
As suggested above, Zizioulas’ work is particularly focused on historical resources and the historical context for their doctrine. Given this fact, it is helpful to identify at the outset his method with regard to historical sources, as Zizioulas’ reflections presume a sophisticated historiography. Zizioulas’ use of the patristic fathers in particular is not mere parroting, but represents a more substantial engagement with their work and attempts to translate its content for a contemporary audience. Per Papanikolaou:

His strength lies in his theological synthesis, which does not repeat the Greek fathers, but develops their insights to their logical conclusion and is consistent with their own approach to theology. Zizioulas’s thought is an attempt at Florovsky’s (his mentor) Neo-patristic synthesis, which is not a patristic fundamentalism, but a patristically informed theology adequate to contemporary questions. As we shall see, it is, for Zizioulas, a synthesis of patristic insights interpreted within a eucharistic framework, where the Eucharist is the event where the immanent, trinitarian life of God is made present, and where the most profound human ‘longing’ for identity and communion are fulfilled.*8*

-=-=-=-=-= Endnotes =-=-=-=-=-
*1* Zizioulas suggests in the preface to the 2nd edition of his dissertation, “Many priests, a large part of the lay faithful and many bishops, too, do not know what exactly the task and the institution of the bishop consists in, and how it is connected with the doctrinal substance of the Church. Unfortunately, many Orthodox have it firmly entrenched in their mind that the bishop is in essence an administrator, and that in his liturgical function, including indeed the Divine Eucharist, he is not a person constitutive of the Mystery but more or less decorative someone who is invited to ’embellish’ the whole service by his presence and his vestments.” EBC, 6. *2* Affirmed by McPartlan, The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri De Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 124 and Papanikolaou, “Apophaticism v. Ontology: A Study of Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas,“ (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1998), 179. *3* Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church As the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 94. *4* Papanikolaou suggests that Eucharist, Bishop, Church, “reflects the beginnings of a synthesis which subsequent writings would later develop and clarify.” Papanikolaou, Apophaticism v. Ontology: a Study of Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas, 2. *5* Ibid. *6* Ibid., 177. *7* Meyendorff suggests as much in the foreword to BC, noting, “the present work by John Zizioulas… succeeds brilliantly in showing that the Orthodox doctrines of man and of the Church cannot be compartmentalized in neatly separate sections of theological science—”theology,” “anthropology,” “ecclesiology”—but are simply meaningless if approaches separately.” BC, 11. Rowan Williams makes a similar warning in his foreword to CO: “This book is, in effect, a systematic theology, though it is not structured like one. But it is also a work of apologetics in its way.” CO, xi. The most prominent critiques include Bori, “L’unité De L’église Durant Les Trois Premiers Siècles,” Revue D’histoire Ecclésiastique 65 (1970): 56-68; Halleux, “Personalisme Ou Essentialisme Trinitaire Chez Les Pères Cappadociens? Une Mauvaise Controverse,” Revue Théologique de Louvain 17 (1986): 129-55, 265-92; Baillargeon, “Perspectives Orthodoxes Sur L’eglise-Communion, L’oeuvre De Jean Zizioulas” (PhD diss., Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1989); Volf, After Our Likeness, Turcescu, “”Person” Versus “Individual”; and Behr, “The Trinitarian Being of the Church.” *8* Papanikolaou, Apophaticism, 180.
I’ve also written a summary of some of the major themes in Zizioulas’ work, which is a bit too technical to include here, but for those interested, please check it out here.
See a timeline I’ve made of Zizioulas’ life and career…

4. Bibliography
One note for those searching for Zizioulas’ work in various journal databases. Make sure you search using all the following potential names (French and English versions and his episcopal name): John D. Zizioulas, Jean D. Zizioulas, Metropolitan John
Primary Works by Zizioulas
Note: There are extensive bibliographies devoted to Zizioulas’ published works in various languages in:

• McPartlan, Paul. The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri De Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
• Papanikolaou, Aristotle. Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006.

Major Monographs (in English)
1. Zizioulas, John D. Eucharist, Bishop, Church: the Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001.
This is the published version of Zizioulas’ doctoral dissertation, supervised in part at Harvard under the influential Russian orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky, and completed at the University of Thessolonika. I strongly recommend anyone wishing to understand Zizioulas’ work more deeply, reading this work, as his episcopal ecclesiology has been much neglected in critical treatment. This work was previously published (in Greek and then French) as:

• Zizioulas, John D. Hē Henotēs Tēs Ekklēsias En Tē Theia Eucharistia Kai T Episkopō Kata Tous Treis Prōtous Aiōnas. 1965
• Zizioulas, John D. L’ Eucharistie, L’évêque Et L’eglise Durant Les Trois Premiers Siècles. 2nd ed. Translated by Jean-Louis Palierne. Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1994.

2. Zizioulas, John D. Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.
This is a translation of Zizioulas’ second major monograph, and is actually a collection of essays (some previously published in various languages). The title is descriptive enough to give you an idea of the terrain it covers. It is hard to underestimate the influence of this work in contemporary theology, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. Note, this is the first time many of the essays republished in this volume appear in English translation, though all represent revisions and translations of work formerly published in French, Greek, and German. This work was previously published (in French) as:

• Zizioulas, Jean, Metr. L’être Ecclésial. French vols. Perspective orthodoxe. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1981.

This work includes revised versions of the following essays:

• Zizioulas, Jean, Metr. “Apostolic Continuity and Orthodox Theology : Towards a Synthesis of Two Perspectives.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1975): 75-108.
• More to come (sorry – under construction here)

A digital version of this work is searchable via google boooks at: Being as Communion: Studies in … – Google Book Search
3. Zizioulas, John D.. “Preserving God’s Creation: Three Lectures on Theology and Ecology…”

• “Lecture One.” King’s Theological Review 12, no. 1 (1989): 1-5.
• “Lecture Two.” King’s Theological Review 12, no. 2 (1989): 41-45
• “Lecture Three.” King’s Theological Review 13, no. 1 (1990): 1-5.

This is another greatly neglected work by Zizioulas which demonstrates his ethical concern. This represents a publication of a lecture series that Zizioulas delivered at King’s College London, which was subsequently translated into Greek for publication as a monograph.

• Zizioulas, John, Metr. He Ktise Os Eucharistia. Athens: Akritas, 1992.

This Greek monograph version also includes additional material: “La vision eucharistique du monde et l’homme contemporain.” (per Papanikolaou)
4. Zizioulas, John D. Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. Edited by Paul McPartlan. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
The chapters which represent completely unpublished material are:

• Chapter 1: On Being Other
• Chapter 3: The Father as Cause (this chapter represents a response by Metr. John to many critics (including A. Torrance, M. Volf, and others) and a defense of his upholding of the Cappadocian treatment of the Father as cause of the son and spirit)
• Appendix: A Dialogue with Philip Sherrard
• Chapter 8: The Church as the ‘Mystical’ Body of Christ

This work includes revised versions of the following essays:

• Introduction: ———. “Communion and Otherness.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38, no. 4 (1994): 347-361.
• Chapter 2: ———. “On Being a Person Towards An Ontology of Personhood.” In Persons, Divine and Human: King’s College Essays in Theological Anthropology. Edited by Colin E Gunton and Christoph Schwöbel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
• Chapter 4: ———. “The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity : the Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution.” In Trinitarian Theology Today. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
• Chapter 5: ———. “The Teaching of the 2nd Ecumenical Council on the Holy Spirit in Historical and Ecumenical Perspective.” In Credo in Spiritum Sanctum. Edited by J.S. Martins. Teologia e filosofia 6. Roma: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983.
• Chapter 6: ———. “Human Capacity and Human Incapacity: a Theological Exploration of Personhood.” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 5 (1975): 401-448.
• Chapter 7: [published in Greek and French]

A digital version of this work is searchable via google boooks at: Communion and Otherness: Further … – Google Book Search
5. Zizioulas, John D. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. Edited by Douglas H Knight. Translated by Katerina Nikolopulu. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2009.
This work is a revised version of the lectures in Christian dogmatics Zizioulas has been teaching for many years. You can also find an early transcription which is similar to this work, online in Greek and English in the form of student notes, graciously published by a Zizioulas student at [coming soon]
6. Zizioulas, John D. The Eucharistic Communion and the World. Ed. by Luke Ben Tallon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2012.
I include here, from the book, the list of previous sources for this collection:

• Chapter 1 appeared first in French as “‘L’eucharistie: quelques aspects bibliques.” Pages 13–74 in L’Eucharistie, John D. Zizioulas, Jean M. R. Tillard, and Jean-Jacques von Allmen. Tours, France: Mame, 1970. The present text is a translation by Luke Ben Tallon.
• Chapter 2 was published originally as a three-part article in Sourozh 58 (1995): 1–12 and 59 (1995): 1–12; 22– 38.
• Chapter 3 was published originally in Sourozh 79 (2000): 2–17.
• Chapter 4 was published originally in Nicolaus 10 (1982): 333–49.
• Chapter 5 was published originally in Sobornost 5 (1969): 644–62.
• Chapter 6 appeared first in French as “La Vision Eucharistique du Monde et L’Homme Contemporain.” Contacts, Revue Française de L’orthodoxie 57 (1967): 83–92. The present text is a translation by Luke Ben Tallon.
• Chapter 7 was given first as the keynote address of the first plenary session of the Baltic Sea Symposium on Religion, Science and the Environment, 2003, www.rsesymposia.org.
• Chapter 8 was published originally as a three-part article in Sourozh 39 (1990): 1–11; 40 (1990): 31–40; and 41 (1990): 28–39.

Journal Articles and Chapters
I am going to try and make sure I exclude those works which have been republished in monograph form above. The essays below are those which have not yet been republished elsewhere.
1969 and Earlier
Zizioulas, Jean D.. “The Eucharistic View of the World and Modern Man.” Christian Symposium (1967): 183-90. ———. “Comments.” Study Encounter 4, no. 4 (1968): 191-193. ———. “The Development of Conciliar Structures to the Time of the First Ecumenical Council.” In Councils and the Ecumenical Movement. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1968. ———. “The Meaning of Ordination: A Comment.” Study Encounter 4 (1968): 191-193. ———. “Response to the Study Paper “The Meaning of Ordination” : An Orthodox Response.” Foundations 12, no. 2 (1969): 134-137. ———. “The Authority of the Bible.” Ecumenical Review 21 (1969): 160-66. ———. “Some Reflections on Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist.” Sobornost 5, no. 9 (1969): 644-52.
1970-1979
———. “God Reconciles and Makes Free – An Orthodox Comment.” Bulletin (of the Department of Theology of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the World Presbyterian Alliance) 10, no. 2 (1970): 7-8. ———. “Ordination and Communion.” Study Encounter 6 (1970): 187-192. ———. “Ecclesiological Issues Inherent in the Relations Between Eastern Chalcedonian and Oriental Non-Chalcedonian Churches.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16 (1971): 144-162. ———. “Reflections of An Orthodox (On Common Witness and Proselytism).” Ecumenical Review 23, no. 1 (1971): 30-34. ——. “Ordination-a sacrament?: an Orthodox reply” Concilium 4 (1972). ———. “The Eucharistic Community and the Catholicity of the Church.” In New Man. 1973. ———. “The Pneumatological Dimension of the Church.” International Catholic Review Communio 1 (1974): 142-58. ———. “Orthodox-Protestant Bilateral Conversations: Some Comments.” In The Orthodox Church and the Churches of the Reformation. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1975. ———. “Informal Groups in the Church : An Orthodox Viewpoint.” In Informal Groups in the Church: Papers of the Second Cerdic Colloquium, Strasbourgh. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Publications, 1975. ———. “Hellenism and Christianity: The Encounter of Two Worlds.” In The History of the Hellenic Nation. Athens, 1976. –——. Orthodox Theological Education for the Life and Witness of the Church. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978. ———. “The Ecumenical Dimensions of Orthodox Theological Education.” In Orthodox Theological Education for the Life and Witness of the Church. Geneva: WCC, 1978. ———. “Churches in Conciliar Fellowship. Geneva: Conference of European Churches,” 1978. ———. “The Eucharistic Prayer and Life.” Emmanuel 85 (1979): 191-96, 201-03.
1980-1989
Secondary Works on Zizioulas
There is an extensive bibliography detailing secondary treatment of Zizioulas (up until 2007) in:

• Knight, Douglas H. The Theology of John Zizioulas : Personhood and the Church . Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, 2007.

This also happens to be the first edited collection of essays devoted to Zizioulas’ theology.
Full Monographs (at least 50% devoted to Zizioulas)

• McPartlan, Paul. The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri De Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
• Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: the Church As the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
• Knight, Douglas H. The Eschatological Economy: Time and the Hospitality of God . Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.
• Papanikolaou, Aristotle. Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006.

Dissertations devoted to Zizioulas

• Agoras, Konstantinos. “Personne et liberte : ou “etre comme communion” dans l’oeuvre de Jean Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., 1992).
• Aoun, Michel. “La dimension eschatologique du sacrement de l’ordre dans la discussion theologique recente.” (PhD diss., 1995).
• Areeplackal, Joseph. “The pneumatological dimension of ordained ministry as presented by Yves Congar and John Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., 1988).
• Bachmann, Steve. “Enigma Variations: The “Imago Dei” as the Basis for Personhood with Special Reference to C E Gunton, M Volf and J D Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., Brunel University, 2002).
• Baillargeon, Gaētan. “Perspectives orthodoxes sur l’Eglise-Communion, L’oeuvre de Jean Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., Éditions Paulines, 1989).
• Carter, J. Kameron. “Hypostatic Identity In the Neo-Patristic Theology of John D. Zizioulas.” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996).
• Chiavone, Michael L.. “The unity of God as understood by four twentieth century trinitarian theologians: Karl Rahner, Millard Erickson, John Zizioulas, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.” (PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005).
• Fontbona I Misse, Jaume. “Comunion y sinodalidad: La eclesiologia eucaristica despues de N. Afanasiev en I. Zizioulas y J. M. R. Tillard.” (PhD diss., 1994).
• Gabrielson, Randy Lyle. “An evangelical critique on John Zizioulas’ understsanding of particularity.” (master’s thesis, Regent College, 1997).
• Green, Bradley Glen. “Colin Gunton and the Failure of Augustine: An Exposition and Analysis of the Theology of Colin Gunton in Light of Augustine’s “De Trinitate”.” (PhD diss., Baylor University, 2000). In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=731830091&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fm… (accessed January 7, 2008).
• Issari, Philia. “The human person as communion and otherness.” (PhD diss., 2002).
• Kaggwa, Robert. “Koinonia: The Triune God and mission. A critical study of Juergen Moltmann and John D. Zizioulas’ Trinitarian theologies and an inquiry into their possible relevance for contemporary African situations.” (PhD diss., 1996).
• Kireopolos, Antonios Steve. “The Dialogue With Orthodox Theology in the Ecclesiology of Jurgen Moltmann: Trinitarian Theology and Pneumatology as the Twin Pillars of Ecclesiology.” (PhD diss., Fordham University, 2003).
• Mcdonnell, John J.. “Communio, collegiality, conciliarity: A comparative analysis of these concepts drawn from certain Catholic and Orthodox theologians.” (PhD diss., 1990).
• McPartlan, Paul. The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
• Medley, Mark Samuel. “Imago trinitatis: Toward a relational understanding of being human.” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995).
• Melissaris, Athanasios G.. “Orthodox anthropology and archetypal psychology: Comparing John Zizioulas and James Hillman on personhood.” (PhD diss., Boston University, 1997).
• Norris, Barry John. “Pneumatology, existentialism and personal encounter in contemporary theologies of church and ministry with particular reference to John Zizioulas and Martin Buber.” (PhD diss., University of London, 1995).
• Papanikolaou, Aristotle. “Apophaticism v. Ontology: A Study of Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1998). In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=6&did=736889941&SrchMode=1&sid=16&F… (accessed February 12, 2008).
• Perrault, John. “The Ecclesiology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas As An Extension of the Trinitology of Basil of Caesarea.” (master’s thesis, Wesley Biblical Seminary, 1994).
• Pietropaoli, David. “Visible ecclesial communion: Authority and primacy in the conciliar church. Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians in dialogue.” (PhD diss., 1997).
• Robinson, Peter Mark Benjamin. “Towards a definition of persons and relations with particular reference to the relational ontology of John Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., University of London, 1999).
• Ruddy, Christopher James. “One church in many churches: The theology of the local church in the writings of Jean-Marie Roger Tillard, O.P.” (PhD diss., 2002).
• Sandahl, Bo Alf Stefan. “Person, Relation och Gud: Konstruktionen av ett Relationellt Personbegrepp i Nutida Trinitarisk Teologi (Person, Relation, and God: Constructing a Relational Concept of Personhood in contemporary Trinitarian theology).” (PhD diss., Lunds Universitet, 2004).
• Skira, Jerry Zenon. “Christ and creation, the Spirit and the Church in Modern Orthodox Theology: A Comparison of Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, Nikos Nissiotis and John Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 1998).
• Stoicoiu, Rodica M. M.. “The Sacrament of order in its relationship to eucharist, church and trinity in the theological writings of Edward Kilmartin and John Zizioulas.” (PhD diss., 2004).
• Tibbs, Eve M.. “East Meets West: Trinity, Truth and Communion in John Zizioulas and Colin Gunton.” (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2006). In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1105008571&SrchMode=1&sid=4&F… (accessed February 12, 2008).

Monographs and Dissertations with Chapters (less then 50%) Devoted to Zizioulas

• Fox, Patricia. God As Communion: John Zizioulas, Elizabeth Johnson, and the Retrieval of the Symbol of the Triune God. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001.
• LaCugna, Catherine M. God for Us. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992.
• Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion: An Essay on Trinitarian Description and Human Participation, with Special Reference to Volume One of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Journal Articles

• Behr, John. “The Trinitarian Being of the Church.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48, 1 (2003): 67-88.
• Bori, Pier Cesare. “L’unité de l’Église durant les trois premiers siècles.” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 65 (1970): 56-68.
• Christakis, Christos B. “The creation as Eucharist: a theological approach to the problem of ecology.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 40, 4 (1996): 323-326.
• Chryssavgis, John. “Review: Communion and Otherness.” Theology Today 64, 4 (January, 2008): 510-512.
• Cumin, Paul. “Looking For Personal Space in the Theology of John Zizioulas.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 8, 4 (October, 2006): 356-370.
• Groppe, Elizabeth T.. “Creation Ex Nihilo and Ex Amore: Ontological Freedom in the Theologies of John Zizioulas and Catherine Mowry Lacugna.” Modern Theology 21, 3 (July, 2005): 463-496.
• Halleux, André de. “‘L’Église catholique’ dans la lettre ignacienne aux Smyrnoites.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 58 (1982).
• Halleux, André de. “Personalisme ou essentialisme trinitaire chez les Pères cappadociens? Une mauvaise controverse.” Revue théologique de Louvain 17 (1986): 129-55, 265-92.
• Hankey, Wayne. “Theoria versus Poesis: Neoplatonism and Trinitarian Difference in Aquinas, John Milbank, Jean-Luc Marion and John Zizioulas.” Modern Theology 15, 4 (October, 1999): 387–415.
• Harrison, Nonna Verna. “Zizioulas on Communion and Otherness.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 42 (1998): 273-300.
• Hart, David Bentley. “The Mirror of the Infinite: Gregory of Nyssa on the Vestigia Trinitatis.” Modern Theology 18, 4 (October, 2002): 541–561.
• Heim, S. Mark. “The Depth of the Riches: Trinity and Religious Ends.” Modern Theology 17, 1 (January, 2001): 21-55.
• Hunt, Anne. “The Trinity and the Church: Explorations in Ecclesiology from a Trinitarian Perspective.” Irish Theological Quarterly 70, 3 (2005): 215-235.
• Lawrence, Marilynn. “Theo-Ontology: Notes on the Implications of Zizioulas’ Engagement With Heidegger.” Theandros 3, 2 (2005).
• Manoussakis, John Panteleimon. “The Anarchic Principle of Christian Eschatology in the Eucharistic Tradition of the Eastern Church.” Harvard Theological Review 100, 1 (2007): 29-46.
• McCall, Tom. “Holy love and divine aseity in the theology of John Zizioulas.” Scottish Journal of Theology 61, 02 (2008): 191-205.
• McPartlan, Paul. “The Local Church and the Universal Church: Zizioulas and the Ratzinger- Kasper Debate.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 4, 1 (2004): 21-33.
• Melissaris, Athanasios G. “The Challenge of Patristic Ontology in the Theology of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44 (1999): 467-490.
• Papanikolaou, Aristotle. “Divine Energies or Divine Personhood: Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas on Conceiving the Transcendent and Immanent God.” Modern Theology 19, 3 (2003): 357-385.
• Papanikolaou, Aristotle. “Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu.” Modern Theology 20, 4 (2004): 601-607.
• Russell, Edward. “Reconsidering Relational Anthropology: A Critical Assessment of John Zizioulas’s Theological Anthropology.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 5, 2 (July, 2003): 168-186.
• Schroeder, C. Paul. “Suffering Towards Personhood: John Zizioulas and Fyodor Dostoevsky in Conversation on Freedom and the Human Person.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45, 3 (2001): 243-64.
• Small, Joseph D. “What is Communion and When is it Full?.” Ecclesiology 2, 1 (September, 2005): 71-87.
• Tataryn, Myroslaw. “The Munich document and the language of unity.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26, 4 (1989): 648-663.
• Turcescu, Lucian. “”Person” Versus “Individual”, and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa.” Modern Theology 18, 4 (October, 2002): 527–539.
• Vallianatos, Angelos. “Creation, Koinonia, Sustainability and Climate Change.” Ecumenical Review 49, 2 (April, 1997): 194-202.
• Volf, Miroslav. “”The Trinity Is Our Social Program”: The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Shape of Social Engagement.” Modern Theology 14, 3 (1998): 403-423.
• Webster, J. “The Self-Organizing Power of the Gospel of Christ: Episcopacy and Community Formation.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 3, 1 (2001): 69-82.
• Wilks, J. G. F.. “Trinitarian Ontology of John Zizioulas.” Vox Evangelica 25 (1995): 63-88.
• Williams, A. N.. “‘Instrument of the union of hearts’: The Theology of Personhood and the Bishop.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4, 3 (November, 2002): 278-300

RSE Publications
Zizioulas has participated extensively in an Orthodox organization called “Religion, Science, and the Environment” as a panel member, keynote speaker, and lecturer. Many of these are available online at http://www.rsesymposia.org/. Following are the addresses that he has made there, by symposia: 1995, Aegean Sea Symposium

• Zizioulas, John D. “The Book of Revelation and the Natural Environment .” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Aegean Sea Conference 1995. [Republished in Synaxe, 56, p.13-22.]
• ———. “Roundtable: Reflections on the Role of the Christian Churches in Encouraging Concern for the Environment.” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Aegean Sea Conference 1995. http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?&pcatid=50&theitemid=15&catid=128.

1997, Black Sea Symposium

• Zizioulas, John D. “Science and the Environment: a Theological Approach.” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Black Sea Conference 1997.

1999, Danube Symposium

• None Available

2002, Adriatic Sea Symposium

• Zizioulas, John D. “Keynote Speech: Towards An Environmental Ethic.” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Adriatic Sea Conference 2002.

2003, Baltic Sea Symposium

• Zizioulas, John D. “Plenary Session I, Keynote Address: Proprietors or Priests of Creation.” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Baltic Sea Conference 2003. 2003.

2006, Amazon Symposium

• Zizioulas, John D. “Learning From the Indigenous.” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Amazon River Conference 2006. August 12, 2006. http://www.rsesymposia.org/themedia/File/1173288141-Learning_from_the_In….
• ———. “The Theological Approach to the Ecological Problem.” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Amazon River Conference 2006. 2006. http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?&pcatid=45&theitemid=56&catid=161.
• 2007, Arctic Symposium
• Zizioulas, John D. “Dialogue Between Religion and Science.” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Arctic Conference 2007. 2007.
• ———. “Keynote Address: .” In Religion, Science, and the Environment, Arctic Conference 2007.

Notes on bibliography: For those who are curious, I’m formatting all my citations using the Chicago AD format. I use Sente to manage all my references.

I come from a Christian tradition that eschews the organisation of worship. Drawing on an approach to worship developed in the 20th century which drew on Romantic thought, spontaneous worship was seen as more authentic and repetitious liturgy deadening to the soul. My own experience has been quite the inverse. I found spontaneous worship to be surprisingly repetitious and only different in that the level of care was lower and many crucial elements of worship (particularly confession and absolution) were often omitted. I love the prayerbook and find worship using Cranmer’s prose to be uniquely nourishing to my soul.
I bring this sensibility to my reading of liturgy, particularly those texts in the New Testament which are so often wielded as weapons by the anti-liturgical. One of these came up today in the sermon, and liturgy was far from the topic which was eloquently covered by the preaching today, it still struck me as an interesting challenge for biblical interpreters striving to remain contemporary while not anachronistic.
The text is from Mark 7:

“Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:1–13 ESV)

The Pharisees and scribes, described as coming from the liturgical police in Jerusalem, were probably sent to undermine Jesus’ ministry by pointing out the lax conduct of his disciples here. Mark even provides his readers with a gloss in verse 3 explaining the basis for their criticism. There is a polemic against the Pharisees on several levels here.

First, that they are slavishly attentive to ritual behavior without getting at the heart of the matter. Jesus drives this home by quoting Isaiah 29:13.1

Second, and perhaps worse still, this attentiveness to ritual is based on an overwrought respect for the “tradition of the elders” (Greek: paradosin tōn presbyterōn)  as Jesus notes, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). He goes on to intensify this critique of tradition in verse 9 and following as he notes that the practice of corban is a “You have a fine way of  rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!”

As I’ve seen, our response to this very incisive critique by Jesus can be overextended, and I tend to think that an over-reaction which seeks to abolish ‘tradition’ and purge our religion of ‘ritual acts’ has its own consequences. In some ways, the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s appeal to tradition as a basis for the cultivation of coherent moral action, is a 20th century reaction to the 19th and early 20th century to the sort of over-reaction by Protestant Christians I am describing here.

So if we are to try and avoid overreaction, I would like to explore some possible ways we can read this text (and others like it) more carefully and less anachronistically.

First of all, as my good professor of NT studies at Regent college suggests, it is important to get the Phrarisees right: the trouble with the Pharisees is not that they sought to construct impossibly elaborate ritual schemes that imprisoned people. Rather, as Rikk Watts suggests: “we often hold them to be hypocrites and fairly nasty people” but actually, “you’d probably like having a Pharisee next door, they were good people: no late night parties; no wild women or loud cars; no drugs; a bit over keen on being religious, but not too bad. In fact they were respected by the people; even though the people couldn’t live up to their expections… Why then did they come in for such flack [from Jesus and his disciples]? Because they are the ones who are offering the most serious alternative to Jesus. Populist to a degree; not distant and self-interested like the Sadducees; not violent like the zealots, nor off with the visionaries in the desert: which for most was just not an alternative.” (a few quotes from Rikk’s brilliant Introductory NT course, in the lecture on Jewish and Palestinian Backgrounds to the NT).

Jesus’ rejoinder to the Pharisees changes the language slightly, which is also noteworthy – while the pharisees are concerned that the disciples seem to be unconcerned with the “tradition of the elders” (paradosin tōn presbyterōn), picking up on the opposition posed in Isaiah 29, Jesus suggests that they “abandon God’s commandments” and instead “hold to the tradition of men” (krateite tēn paradosin tōn anthrōpōn) – in verse 9 his reference is just to “your tradition,” elders are not mentioned again until Mark 8:312. It helps if we note that this opposition is a specific one: between the commands of God, probably a reference to the Torah (or books of Moses) and the tradition of men (which is probably a reference to the accumulated oral tradition of rabbinic halachah, which involved exegesis on scripture). Taken in this light, Jesus’ example in vs. 10-13 makes a good deal of sense: primacy is given to the Torah where we read in the law of Moses that one is to honor father and mother3. We may interpret that text, but if our interpretation overrides its plain meaning, this is unacceptable. But this example is itself a noteworthy defense of tradition, both in the sense of affirming the primacy of the original statement of the covenant over against innovative new interpretations, and in the very basic affirmation to honor one’s parents – which is itself the most basic definition of tradition.

So we can not only rescue tradition here, but in fact affirm that Jesus is calling the Pharisees to a conservative form of tradition reception. But what of the dismissal of liturgy that we find in Jesus’ words here? There are two different sets of ritual acts noted in the text: first ritual handwashing which Mark observes is not merely Pharasaic practice, but universally Jewish (in vs. 3 “…and all the Jews” GK: pantes hoi Ioudaioi). The second is added by Mark in vs. 4, where he refers to other sorts of ritual washing: “And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as  the washing of  cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.” I’ll have to do a bit more background work on this before I’m confident about my conclusions here, but I’ll preliminarily suggest that the same opposition holds for this example. Ritual washing for all people is nowhere prescribed in the Hebrew bible. We find the instruction in Exodus 30 that Aaron and his sons wash their hands before approaching the altar (which may have provided the basis for the rabbinic instruction), but this is as specific as the Hebrew bible gets on the matter. So the rejection here of ritual washing is not a rejection of a liturgical practice prescribed in Torah, but a creative extrapolation of one. This seems to me to be an important distinction, and affirms that we are not rejecting liturgical worship, but a dangerous method of interpreting scripture as the basis for commending certain liturgical forms.

Of course, I’m not so sure that the intention here is to reject creative biblical interpretation either, but I’ll save that one for another post!

• 1. “And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.” (Isaiah 29:13–14 ESV)
• 2. “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.” (Mark 8:31 ESV)
• 3. ““Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” (Exodus 20:12 ESV)