Professor Michel Abs
The Secretary General of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC)
This is an analytical reading of the address delivered by His Beatitude Patriarch John X at the opening of the Holy Synod at Balamand on October 20, 2026. We have chosen to reflect upon it because of the depth of its meanings, values, and aspirations—elements that need to be recalled and translated into practice.
Through these prophetic words, His Beatitude expresses what dwells in the hearts of all of us during these difficult times: our feelings, our concerns, and our faith in a Church that remains steadfast in its land because it is an integral part of the homeland—part of its roots, history, memory, and culture—and because it shares this homeland with all its components, in all their diversity.
His Beatitude’s address reveals an ecclesial vision that goes beyond the administration of internal Church affairs toward a broader understanding of the role of the Antiochian Church in the East and throughout the diaspora. The address may be read through five interconnected themes: responsibility, presence, witness, unity, and synodality.
The first element that stands out is the Patriarch’s awareness of the weight of the historical responsibility entrusted to the Church. His expression, “the cross of a historical responsibility,” places ecclesial action within a framework that is at once spiritual and realistic.
As he says, the Church is neither a “worker of miracles” nor is it resigned to helplessness. This dual affirmation reflects a balanced position: on the one hand, it rejects placing expectations upon the Church that exceed its capacities; on the other, it refuses to use difficulties as a justification for withdrawal.
The mission is to act within what is possible and available, in an evangelical spirit rooted in love and witness.
At the same time, the address offers a clear critique of the idea of a Church that is humanly perfect or infallible. The Patriarch does not deny the possibility of error or the legitimacy of criticism, but he refuses to allow the Church to be reduced either to its shortcomings or to the judgments others make about it.
In this sense, he articulates a realistic ecclesial discourse that distinguishes between the holiness of the mission and the weakness of the human beings entrusted with carrying it.
The second theme is the affirmation of the authenticity and rootedness of the Christian presence in the East.
For His Beatitude, this presence is not an incidental historical phenomenon. It is intimately connected to the very essence of Christianity and to the mystery of the Incarnation.
By recalling the words of Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim and Patriarch Elias IV Mouawad, he reaffirms the relationship between Christianity and the geography of the Antiochian Levant. Jerusalem, Damascus, Beirut, and Antioch are not merely geographical locations; they are spaces that shaped the earliest Christian memory.
Here, presence itself becomes a mission.
The Church does not defend its existence as a sectarian privilege. Rather, it understands that existence within the framework of unity in life and partnership with the different religious components of society.
The phrase, “We were a bridge of communication when the language of barricades prevailed,” encapsulates a vision of the Church as an agent of reconciliation rather than a party to division.
The third theme concerns the Church’s relationship with national and political affairs.
The Patriarch distinguishes between “speaking the word of truth in national affairs that unite” and entering “the corridors of politics that divide.”
This distinction is significant. It does not call for the Church to withdraw from public life, but rather for a form of presence that does not become political alignment.
The Church respects the political choices of its faithful while preserving a common space capable of transcending partisan divisions.
The fourth theme is the unity of Antioch between the homeland and the diaspora.
Here the address reflects a clear concern that geographical and cultural dispersion could weaken the sense of belonging to the Mother Church.
For this reason, His Beatitude stresses the need to strengthen “Antiochian thought and Antiochian identity” through language, theology, and authentic tradition, while maintaining a living relationship between the dioceses of the diaspora and those of the historic homeland.
This unity should not be understood as administrative centralization, but as a reciprocal sense of belonging and shared responsibility.
Within this same context comes his rejection of ethnic and nationalist isolation, as well as his warning against proselytism carried out under the pretext of evangelization or humanitarian assistance.
Here emerges a vision that rejects the transformation of religion into an instrument of competition among Churches, just as it rejects reducing Christianity to an ethnic or national identity.
The priority is belonging to Christ and cooperation among the Churches.
The final theme is synodality.
According to the Patriarch’s address, the Holy Synod is not merely a body that gathers to make decisions. It is “the gathering of all into one.”
Synodality here is a lived reality and an ongoing journey within the life of the Church, rather than a rigid institutional ritual.
It requires solidarity among dioceses, shared responsibility, and the practical expression of the Church’s unity.
Ultimately, the address presents a vision of the Antiochian Church as one that sees itself as a witness in the East without becoming closed within it; present in public affairs without becoming a political party; deeply rooted in its history without becoming captive to it; and open to the diaspora without losing its identity.
It is a call for a united, realistic, and synodal Church—one that understands its presence in the East as a mission of service, witness, and shared life, rather than merely a struggle for survival.