Georges N. Nahas

Georges N. Nahas's article examines the contemporary situation of the Orthodox Church as it faces a growing gap between its inherited institutional concerns and the expectations of today's world. Drawing on critical ecclesiological reflection, the study questions the relevance of the Church's internal debates — primacy, autocephaly, jurisdiction, calendar — in light of the challenges facing contemporary society. The central idea is that the Church, by confining itself to these canonical and organizational questions, paradoxically reveals its entrenchment in a worldly logic, thereby betraying its properly evangelical vocation. On the theological level, the article calls for a profound renewal of Orthodox ecclesiological discourse, both in its themes and its orientations, so that the Church may respond credibly to the spiritual and human challenges of the present time.

This article is devoted to the figure of Father Pierre Struve (1924-1968), an Orthodox priest whose pastoral and ecclesial action left a lasting mark on Orthodox parish life in French-speaking communities. The author, Georges N. Nahas, offers a biographical and historical account tracing the journey of this parish founder, who came from the Russian diaspora, whose spiritual and institutional legacy remains alive. The central idea is to show how Father Pierre Struve embodied a vision of Orthodoxy open to the Western world, attentive to dialogue and local rootedness. From a theological and historical perspective, the article contributes to the understanding of the Orthodox diaspora in the twentieth century, by documenting the foundational role of priestly figures who have often been little studied in the transmission and embodiment of the Orthodox tradition outside its lands of origin.

This article by Georges N. Nahas deals with the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council and the place of the faithful in this process. It presents itself explicitly as a personal testimony rather than an academic study, informed by the author's experience within the Patriarchate of Antioch and Pan-Orthodox youth. The main idea is that the conciliar agenda, dominated by administrative and organizational questions, neglects the apostolic dimension of the Church and marginalizes the People of God as bearers of charisms. The author argues that the faithful — young people, women, intellectuals — must be involved in the preparatory reflection. On the theological level, the article recalls the principle of the royal priesthood as the ecclesiological foundation of lay participation, and proposes concrete measures to establish a renewed Pan-Orthodox dynamic before the holding of the Council.

This article examines the foundations of ethics and freedom as conceived by the Orthodox theological tradition, confronting them with the demands of the contemporary world. Through a study of a theological and apologetic nature, Georges N. Nahas analyzes the specificity of an Orthodox person-centered approach, distinct from the dominant ethical currents in secularized societies. The main idea is that Orthodox thought has an original and coherent contribution to make to current ethical debates, but that this contribution remains largely unknown, often obscured by an expression that is too exclusively pietistic. The contribution of the article lies in the call for an accessible and audible reformulation of the Orthodox discourse on ethics and freedom, so that believers can engage in a relevant manner with the major moral questions raised by contemporary society.

This article by Georges N. Nahas, honorary dean of the Institute of Orthodox Theology of Balamand, examines the relationship between Orthodox theology and modernity. Proceeding through an analytical study structured in three stages — contextualization, exposition of theological foundations, and illustration through concrete cases — the author argues that Orthodox theology possesses the necessary resources to engage in dialogue with the contemporary world. He identifies three pillars of the Orthodox tradition — life in Christ, the communal dimension, and witness — as levers for authentic engagement with modernity. Through the issues of the person and society, ethics and the body, the article demonstrates that Orthodox specificity, particularly its anthropological vision and its notion of "sobornost," offers a coherent alternative to the dead ends of modern individualism, provided that the Church develops structures for collective reflection and adopts a proactive rather than reactive stance.