The Eastern Orthodox Hall of Mirrors

Pr. Joshua Schooping lays bare EO's foundations of sand and walls of straw.

Pr. Joshua Schooping colloquized into the LCMS in 2023 after departing the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC). He has published a well-written, tightly structured, and densely referenced book documenting his search for the truth, Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church. Gottesdiest recently posted an outstanding interview with Pr. Schooping, while Issues Etc. also had an excellent interview with him last year.

He was attracted to study Eastern Orthodoxy due to a combination of personal experiences and a desire to understand Christianity more deeply. He was raised in a nondenominational evangelical environment, but felt his understanding of Christianity was too shallow. Waiting for his son’s birth, he experienced something of a ‘divine confrontation’ to immerse himself in studying Christianity. He was particularly enticed by the EOC’s claims about being rooted in the original church.

His disillusionment with the EOC began while studying at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in Yonkers, NY. ​He started doubting the church's persistent claims of being ‘original and unchanging’ despite historical evidence showing that the church’s liturgical practices had significantly changed over time. The more he researched it, the more he realized the church’s emphatic assertions of unbroken liturgical and doctrinal continuity with early Christianity were unsupported by the facts.

Further doubts arose for Pr. Schooping as he tested EOC statements about Western Christian teachings of the doctrine of atonement, labeling it as “Western legalism or Calvinist baggage”. The EOC reduces the atonement simply to Christ's victory over death (Christus Victor).

After independently examining the church fathers, he discovered the likes of John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Simeon the New Theologian did indeed teach penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), contrary to EO claims about it being a ‘Western’ invention. Consequently, his faith in the integrity of the church's teachings began to fray. He adds that the EOC's portrayal of its own theology as purely mystical and non-legalistic was, with the best construction, misleading.

“Seminary itself, however, was in many ways a rude awakening, doctrinally, ecclesiastically, and morally. At the seminary, among other things, we had a Scripture professor deny the inspiration of Scripture, and another professor deny the historical resurrection of Jesus.”

Pr. Schooping’s disillusionment deepened when he examined the EOC's formal teachings, notably the Synod of Jerusalem’s (1672) decrees, which contradicted the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was a pivotal moment for Pr. Schooping, realizing the EOCs formally rejected the gospel much as the Roman Catholic Church anathematized the gospel with the Council of Trent.

Additionally, the church's inconsistent and sometimes contradictory teachings on several doctrines, including the veneration of icons and the role of Mary, further eroded his confidence. He also grew frustrated with the EO habit of selectively quoting church fathers to support different theological positions, “In short, people pick and choose whatever they want in today's EO world,” writes Pr. Schooping.

“As time went on, after the Pandemic closures ceased, and when it became clear that not only were these the factual, formal positions of the confessing Eastern Orthodox Church, and that as such were by definition irreformable (since the Church also confesses that it cannot err), then it became clear to my conscience that I could no longer stay. It was entirely tragic. I had overlooked the constant Semi-Pelagianism, the confusion surrounding the Atonement, the unscriptural pietism, the Toll Houses, the prayers to saints, the excessive elevation of Mary, and so much more, even defending some of them openly, but when it became clear that the Orthodox Church formally confuses the Gospel through its iconology, its ecclesiology, and even through its Mariology, it was no longer possible to stay.”¹

The accumulating anguish propelled Pr. Schooping out of the EOC. He ultimately found a home in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), where the dogma is supported by Scripture and even church tradition. ​He is the pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Russellville, AR.

Strategic Silence

Pr. Schooping says the EOC deals with contradictions and inconsistencies by combining strategic silence, selective emphasis on certain church fathers, and a flexible interpretation of historical and theological claims. ​This approach allows it to maintain the appearance of unity despite accommodating eclectic, conflicting, and even bizarre theological perspectives and practices within its body. ​

The EOC boastfully emphasizes the stable and enduring nature of its liturgy and traditions, connecting them with the “original” church. However, when faced with historical evidence of change or doctrinal inconsistencies, the EOC resorts to saying no single church father or council is definitive. It has built a flimsy defensive wall based on a broad, impressionistic view of its theology, which results in a “cacophony of interpretations and practices.” ​

This method of strategic silence is usually deployed to avoid alienating potential converts and to insist that the church maintains continuity and authority, even in the face of glaring internal contradictions. ​

Appeal to Authority

The EOC appeals to authority to justify its positions and wave away controversies, structuring a series of reinforcing layers.

1. Church Fathers: The writings and teachings of early Christian theologians and saints are highly revered and considered authoritative, although they are used selectively rather than broadly and harmoniously.

2. Conciliar Authority: The decrees of the church’s councils are regarded as divinely inspire, therefore dogmatically binding and authoritative. The councils are placed on equal footing with Holy Scripture. Consequently, the EOC rejects Sola Scriptura, or the supreme authority of the Bible for Lutherans.

3. Liturgy and Hymnody: EO liturgical practices and hymns have dogmatic authority and are not subject to change. ​

4. Tradition: The EOC claims it is the sole authentic unchanging continuation of the original Christian Church, merely the extension through time of the same faith and practices as the Holy Apostles and early Christians.

5. Patriarchs and Bishops: The hierarchical structure of the EO, with its patriarchs, bishops, and priests, also plays a role in maintaining and interpreting the tradition and teachings of the Church. In some cases, what a bishop says can outweigh the authority of the councils, which logically elevates the bishop to a platform somewhere between Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

“…There is an appeal to authority in all disputes, for the urge to have a referee in disputed matters is deep and abiding in all people, a feature of the imago Dei and man’s consequent will to pursue objective truth and justice. But reason cannot vouchsafe to itself that authority. Reason must submit to truth as her standard, but Ultimate Truth, i.e. God, being infinite, is transcendental to and inaccessible to finite, unaided reason, whether fallen or not, requiring the asymmetrical inbreaking of truth, i.e. of revelation, into the realm of reason in order for ultimate truth to be knowable. Even Adam in the Garden was graced to know the Lord.”²

Mysticism and Asceticism

The EOC has a heavy emphasis on mysticism, which Lutherans will recognize as Schwärmerei (Enthusiasm). The goal for EO adherents is to cultivate and engender a direct experiential relationship with God that is supposed to be so profound that it is unfathomable, which then renders it authentically divine. The quest for mystical personal revelation is seen in practices such as repetitively reciting the Jesus Prayer³, hesychasm (contemplative prayer seeking “inner stillness”, which is grounded in Mariology⁴), and nepsis (watchfulness). ​

Other mystical practices include:

1. Veneration of Icons:

   • Kissing and bowing before icons of Jesus, Mary, saints, and angels with “strong affection and desire.” This is stated as necessary for salvation according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicaea). Pr. Schooping notes that veneration is not supported by the earliest church fathers and seems to contradict the anti-idolatry stance of early Christianity.

2. Theosis:

   • Salvation as taught to be process of theosis whereby the believer is subsumed by a process of deification through a transformative personal journey. ​This is accomplished by participation in “divine energies” via a mystical union that literally fuses a believer with the Trinity. Pr. Schooping notes that this robs the believer of all assurance of salvation and the EOC does say that such assurance is presumptuous. “Theosis sounds a lot cooler than words like sanctification. Theosis sounds a lot more exotic than words like discipleship.”

3. Tollhouses:

   • Upon death, souls must pass through demonic realms called "tollhouses." Here, demons attempt to seize the soul based on its sins, and the soul is meant to call upon the Virgin Mary (Theotokos) for help.

4. Hymnody:

   • Hymns have binding dogmatic authority and are unchanged for centuries, supposing a mystical continuity and preservation of traditions through specific liturgical practices and rites. Pr. Schooping gives the example of the Akathist Hymn to the Virgin Mary, where she is described as "the propitiation for the world." It is heretical, but EOC adherents are bound and required to believe that statement. The EOC is clear in its instructions for veneration that Mary is the savior, not Christ:

     • “Before an Icon of the Most-holy Theotokos, one may say the prayer, O Most-holy Theotokos, save us.” compared with “Before the Honorable and Life-giving Cross of Christ, we say the prayer "Before Thy Cross, we bow down, O Master, and Thy Holy Resurrection we glorify.”⁵

The overall consequences of the mystical focus are a manifestation of very weird doings. Pr. Schooping documents one of the most bizarre phenomena being encouragement to pray so hard that one spits up blood.

The fact that this mentally and spiritually disturbed behavior is accepted as legitimate in the EOC, and that it is considered consistent with Christian faith, is really quite disturbing.⁶

He notes that the deviant practices are far from aberrations but “evident spiritual delusion approved if not cultivated in the EOC.”

Justification by Faith Alone

Pr. Schooping highlights key differences in atonement views between the EOC and the Western (particularly Protestant) traditions. The Western church emphasizes legal and forensic categories, while the Eastern view relies on mystical and transformative classifications that are ultimately synergistic rather than monergistic.

1. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA): ​

   • Western (Protestant) View: Christ's death is regarded as the substitutionary sacrifice that satisfies God’s eternal demand for justice by bearing the penalty for sin on behalf of humanity. ​This view emphasizes the legal and forensic aspects of atonement, where God's wrath is appeased through Christ's suffering and death. Consequently, justification by faith alone is a pillar of Lutheran theology - it is Christ's atoning work that justifies believers before God

   • Eastern Orthodox View: The EOC generally rejects PSA, viewing it as a Western innovation. Instead, it emphasizes the transformative and mystical aspects of atonement, focusing on Christ's victory over death and sin (Christus Victor) and the process of theosis (deification), where humans are gradually transformed into the likeness of God.

2. Justification: ​

   • Western (Protestant) View: Justification is seen as a forensic declaration where believers are declared righteous by faith alone (sola fide) through the imputed righteousness of Christ. This view separates justification from sanctification, emphasizing that salvation is a gift received through faith, not by works. ​

   • Eastern Orthodox View: Justification is often understood as a process harnessing faith with works. The EOC teaches that faith is not merely intellectual assent but involves having the correct notion of God and divine things, which must be worked out through love and good deeds. This view integrates justification and sanctification more closely, seeing them as part of the same transformative process.

3. Role of Divine Justice: ​

   • Western (Protestant) View: God's holiness and justice require that sin be punished. ​Christ's atonement satisfies this requirement, allowing God to be both just and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus.

   • Eastern Orthodox View: The focus is less on satisfying divine justice and more on healing and restoring humanity. ​The EO perspective sees sin as a disease that needs to be cured rather than a legal debt that must be paid. Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection are viewed as how humanity is healed and brought into communion with God.

The Filioque

The EOC generally rejects the Filioque⁷, the clause added to the Nicene Creed in the Western Church⁸ stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Theologically, the Eastern Orthodox Church argues that the Filioque disrupts the “balance and relationships” within the Holy Trinity. It supposedly introduces a double procession of the Holy Spirit, which it says undermines the Father's unique role as the sole source within the Trinity. ​

Historically, the Eastern Orthodox Church contends that the addition of the Filioque to the Creed was done unilaterally by the Western Church without the consensus of an ecumenical council, which they see as an illegitimate alteration of the Creed established by the early Church.

Various Eastern Orthodox councils and writings have reaffirmed the rejection of the Filioque, which remains a significant point of theological divergence between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. ​

“The East have an actually heretical understanding of the Trinity because they so deeply anathematized the doctrine of the Filioque that they've even alienated themselves from their own church fathers who affirmed it like Epiphanios and Cyril, Gregory of Nissa and Maximus the Confessor.”

Conclusion

Pr. Schooping has done a great service to the church and his book is highly recommended although it is more suitable to seminarians versed in the technical language and larger theological context.

“Too many enter the Orthodox Church under… false pretenses… Caricature and strawman are the main diet offered to the inquirers and catechumens… It is also regrettable that many confirmed in Eastern Orthodoxy will read his work and be confirmed only further in unsubstantiated bias. But there is also hope, hope that many will not be misled by such superficial and uninformed criticisms.”⁹

☩TW☩

1. Schooping, Joshua. Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church, 2nd Edition (p. 22). (Function). Kindle Edition.

2. Ibid., p. 168.

3. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner"

4. Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, which is derived from the immediate data of Scripture, [Gregory] Palamas produced a Mariology that is derived almost entirely from an Eastern hymnography that is itself rooted in a Medieval Byzantine hypertrophic Biblical typology. She is even elevated to a kind of Platonic Idea, as was also shown in the previous study. Presupposed, then, is the Eastern Orthodox theological method of reflection on the Marian hymns, for liturgical Tradition, i.e. the texts of the hymns, are considered to be inspired and bindingly authoritative (analogous to Scripture itself). This fact helps explain elements of both his ascetical theology and his distinctly soteriological brand of Mariology, for the hymns are a kind of deuterocanonical source of further theological reflection and doctrinal assertion, of which Gregory Palamas serves as an almost ideal example for the Eastern Orthodox. Ibid., p. 119.

5. https://www.stgeorgeparish.org.au/information/1029/1143/

6. Ibid., p. 235.

7. Filioque Timeline

1. Early Development: The original Nicene Creed, formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and expanded at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Both Eastern and Western Churches accepted this formulation.

2. Western Addition: In the late 6th century, the phrase "and the Son" (Filioque in Latin) was added to the Creed in some Western Churches, particularly in Spain, to combat Arianism, which denied the divinity of the Son. This addition gradually spread throughout the Western Church.

3. Papal Endorsement: By the 9th century, the Filioque was widely used in the Western Church and received Papal endorsement. However, it was not officially adopted in Rome until the 11th century.

4. Eastern Opposition: The Eastern Church strongly opposed the addition of the Filioque, arguing that it was made unilaterally without the consensus of an ecumenical council. ​ The Eastern Church also believed that the Filioque disrupted the equilibrium within the Trinity by undermining the Father's unique role as the sole source of the Holy Spirit. ​

5. Photian Schism: The controversy intensified during the 9th century under Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, who condemned the Filioque and accused the Western Church of heresy. ​ This period, known as the Photian Schism, marked a significant escalation in the conflict. ​

6. Great Schism: The Filioque controversy was one of the key theological issues contributing to the Great Schism of 1054, formally dividing the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The mutual excommunications of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople concretized the split.

7. Council of Florence: Attempts to reconcile the two branches of Christianity, such as the Council of Florence in 1439, addressed the Filioque issue but ultimately failed to achieve lasting unity.

8. The Western Church justified the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed on several theological and historical grounds:

1. Theological Justification:

   • Scriptural Basis: The Western Church pointed to several passages in the New Testament that they interpreted as supporting the Filioque. For example, in John 15:26, Jesus says, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me."

   • Unity of the Trinity: The Western Church emphasized the unity and consubstantiality of the Trinity. It argued that since the Father and the Son are of the same essence, the Holy Spirit must proceed from both to maintain unity and equality within the Trinity. ​

2. Historical Justification:

   • Combating Arianism: The Filioque was initially added to combat Arianism, a heresy that denied the divinity of the Son.By affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Western Church emphasized the Son's divinity and equal status within the Trinity. ​

   • Local Councils and Usage: The addition of the Filioque was first adopted at local councils, such as the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD, and gradually spread throughout the Western Church. It became a common Western liturgical practice long before the Pope officially endorsed it. ​

   • Papal Authority: The Western Church argued that the Pope, the successor of St. Peter and the supreme authority in the Church, had the right to make such doctrinal clarifications.

3. Ecumenical Councils:

   • Council of Florence (1439): During the Council of Florence, an attempt was made to reconcile the Eastern and Western Churches. The Western Church defended the Filioque by arguing that it was a legitimate theological development that clarified the original intent of the Creed. ​ Although the council temporarily achieved a union, it was not accepted by the majority of the Eastern Church and ultimately failed to resolve the schism.

9. Ibid., pp. 230-231