Eastern Orthodox

As the Roman Empire divided into western and eastern portions, so the church in these regions gradually grew apart. They came to have different languages (Latin and Greek) and different political situations (Germanic tribes/Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Roman Empire). Friction between the two arose, and several particular conflicts like the one in AD 1054 drove the two apart, despite various efforts to regain unity. 

While both the eastern and western churches claimed to be orthodox and catholic, the eastern churches later came to be commonly called Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox. The word "orthodox" is a good word, meaning "right doctrine" (or, according to many Eastern Orthodox, "right worship"), and is even used by my denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, without any reference to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodox churches are united in an acceptance of the “seven ecumenical councils,” as well as communion with the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and shared liturgical practices (the Byzantine Rite). They also share a rejection of the Roman bishop’s claim to universal supremacy. There are about 14 autocephalous regional churches in communion with each other, each having a head bishop that does not report to a higher-ranking bishop (nine of these head bishops are called patriarchs, including the four mentioned above). There are also a few other regional churches whose autocephalous status is contested, some not recognized by Constantinople and some not recognized by Russia. This structure, of a communion of regional churches organized with episcopal government, is similar to the structure of the Anglican Communion. Eastern Orthodox churches are found mostly in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Belarus, the Balkans, Greece, and Georgia. There are around 260 million people that are Eastern Orthodox in the world today. 

Notable Eastern Orthodox figures include John of Damascus (8th century), Photius (9th century), Gregory Palamas (14th century), Cyril Lucaris (17th century), Seraphim Rose (20th century), Alexander Schmemann (20th century), and Kallistos Ware (20th century).

Differences Between East and West

The Eastern church came to differ from the Western church (from which came both Roman Catholic churches and the Protestant churches) in the following ways.

• The filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. This is the clause that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son." This clause was adopted in the West, e.g. Council of Toledo in 589, but never adopted by the East. 

• The use of icons. There was division within the East for a time over the use of icons. At the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 the East affirmed the veneration of icons. Much of the West opposed it at first, but gradually adopted a similar use of images until the Reformation. I have written more about this history here: The Iconoclast Controversy. 

• The leadership of the church and the rise of the papacy. The East has always denied that the pope has universal supremacy or infallibility. It gives the patriarch of Constantinople a position of honor, but not of rule over the whole church, placing more weight on councils and regional churches.

• Leavened or unleavened bread in communion. The East used leavened bread, while the West used unleavened. 

• Facial hair. Eastern clergy did not shave, while Western clergy did shave. 

• Married priests. The West forbade the marriage of priests in the 11th century, while the East allowed it, although it forbade getting married after ordination and married bishops.

• Purgatory. The West affirmed it, while the East did not.

• Original sin. The West affirmed the doctrine, being more strongly influenced by Augustine, while the East held to a weaker view. 

• Immaculate conception of Mary. The West would begin to affirm it, while the East denied it.

• Mode of baptism. The West used sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, while the East only immersed.

• Age of confirmation and first communion. The West waited until the age of discretion and first confession, while the East gave communion to baptized infants.

• Calendar. The West adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1582, while the Eastern church has retained the older Julian calendar for ecclesiastical use. 

• The East used the Greek translation of the Old Testament (and the Greek New Testament), rather than the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (which translated the Old Testament from Hebrew).

• Different emphases. The West would give more attention to the atonement, justification, and doctrine than the East, while the East would put more emphasis on “deification,” mystical devotion, and liturgy.

Notice that in some of these categories, the Protestants continue to hold the Western position, as with the filioque clause, original sin, mode of baptism, rejection of paedo-communion, the eventual use of the Gregorian calendar, and general emphases; while in other areas Protestants adopt a position more like that of the East, as with rejection of papal claims, allowing the use of leavened bread in communion, of clerical facial hair, the marriage of minsters, and rejection of purgatory.

Eastern Orthodoxy and the Reformation

The existence of the Eastern church formed one hole in Roman Catholic arguments as the Reformation began. Some Protestants had hopes of working with them. In fact, there was a Calvinist patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris (1570–1638). As a younger priest, he had encountered Lutherans as he supported Orthodox believers in eastern Europe against the Papists. Later in Egypt, he encountered Reformed theology through a Dutch ambassador to the Ottomans. Lucaris sought to reform the Eastern church and make common cause with Protestants against Rome. His Confession of Faith (1629) proclaimed justification by faith alone, predestination, and sola scriptura. But due to a deal between the Jesuits and Ottomans, he was killed in 1638. Several Eastern Orthodox synods in the 1600s condemned Lucaris’ confession and Protestantism, including the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), motivated it seems by Jesuit influence. Thus, the Eastern Orthodox churches did not experience the Reformation.

Eastern Orthodoxy and America

Eastern Orthodoxy first came to America from Russia to Alaska in the 1700s. This mission of the Orthodox church in Russia moved its headquarters to San Fransisco and then to New York City. It grew through immigrants and through gaining some people who left the Roman Catholic Church. Russian leadership was lost with the Russian Revolution in 1917. The North America diocese operated independently and eventually became the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) when it was granted (disputed) autocephalous status in 1970. But in the meantime, other immigrant groups looked to their own homelands for leadership, so that other Orthodox missions were started. Today there are 13 branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church present in the USA, with most American Eastern Orthodox churches being Greek Orthodox, OCA, or Antiochian Orthodox.

Evaluation 

The Eastern Orthodox Church has some of the problems that the Roman Catholic Church has (e.g. use of images, rejecting sola scriptura, insisting on apostolic episcopal succession, prayers for the intercession of dead saints). It also rejects or at least does not affirm some Roman Catholic errors (e.g. rejects papal supremacy and infallibility, less precise on transubstantiation and justification). It also has some problems of its own (e.g. rejects the filioque clause, weaker on original sin, weaker on doctrine in general).

Some areas of appreciation:

• Their emphasis on the doctrine of the Trinity in doctrine and liturgy.

• Their emphasis on union with Christ, sanctification, and glorification.

• Their relative freedom from the critical spirit of the Enlightenment.

• Their music, especially their Psalm singing.

• Their assent to the doctrinal affirmations of the first six ecumenical councils

• Their perseverance under persecution by Islam and Communism. 

Primary objections:

• Their denial of sola scriptura, seeing Scripture as an especially important part of infallible church tradition; their idea that the Spirit speaks through the church, including through the Scripture as the main written authority in the church, but not the only rule of faith and life. (Extra-biblical church tradition is mostly the ecumenical councils and the liturgy, containing less dogmas than the RCC).

• Their recognition of the apocrypha as Scripture, adding books to the Old Testament not given as Scripture or recognized as Scripture by the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2).

• Their veneration of icons, both in authoritative doctrine (Nicaea II) and in practice.

• Their doctrine of original sin and free will, of predestination based on foresight of the use of prevenient grace, rather than the predestination of those unconditionally chosen according to his sovereign grace and his effectual calling of them (John 6, 10). 

• Their prayer to deceased saints for their intercession, and prayer for the dead. 

• Their hostility to the filioque clause. In fact, the Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son, being the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son (John 15:26, Galatians 4:6).

• Their insistence on apostolic episcopal succession, namely, that only bishops can ordain a person who may truly administer the sacraments through which a person is saved.

• The distinction that has become common in Eastern Orthodox circles between God’s unknowable essence and his energies, so that we can only describe God by negation.

• Their downplaying of teaching and of doctrine (beyond the seven councils), which is generally a weakness. Its approach to worship breeds superstition.

A classis of the URCNA has produced a study report on Eastern Orthodoxy that identifies four reasons people give for joining Eastern Orthodox churches: mystery, history, beauty, and experience. But, on the one hand, these things can be found in the Reformed tradition; and on the other hand, Eastern Orthodox mystery is too agnostic, its tie to history is later and more forged than they claim, its beauty also includes superstition and is at times overdone and gaudy, and its experience is not a safe guide. And the eastern church fathers, like Chrysostom, are not their sole possession - we, like the Reformers, can learn from them as our fathers too.