The revolution was prepared by all the scholarly trends of the time; it was the work of simple priests and monks, but in practice, it ultimately became the work of the ordinary people.
Of course, some went beyond the limits in the smoke, the turmoil, and the bullets, which not only we, but also many participating clergymen condemned. Overall, however, it was a "national liberation revolution" based on political criteria and was supported by a "theology of liberation" according to contemporary theological criteria.
The fact that the protagonists were mostly Orthodox Christians (although some were "wild Christians"), the significant participation of priests and monks, and even the somewhat reluctant involvement of bishops gave it a Christian imprint.
However, the schism that occurred with the Bavarian rule against the Ecumenical Patriarchate spawned the "Helleno-Christian" interpretation and thus an ideology, hence the official celebration on March 25 (which I do not have any particular problem with).
That is why today there are four perspectives on the nature of the revolution, which I am not an expert on to elaborate. However, I believe that three of them overlook certain aspects. I consider that the synthesis of all sides is fair and objective.
Panaigios A. Bourdalas Kertezi, 02.06.2021
