Part II: History of Orthodoxy

Understanding the Term Orthodoxy

To begin our exploration of history, we must first explain the troubling word, orthodoxy. Whenever the term is used in contemporary speech it presents us with a conundrum, for it expresses both bane and blessing, curse and gift, problem and promise. At its heart it implies access to a treasury of wisdom transmitted through the centuries, but it is also accompanied with associations which contaminate that meaning. Look up “orthodoxy” in a standard thesaurus or dictionary, and the words which describe it are compliance, obedience, acquiescence, submission, towing the line, adherence, conformity, observance, and deference. Taken singly or together, these words suggest a history which has come to signify religious coercion and oppression. In its original intent, however, the word expressed a different possibility. Etymologically the Greek compound ortho (straight or right) and doxa (glory, worship, or praise) describes a singular, pure, or undiluted relationship to divine Reality.

So is a different understanding of orthodoxy possible today? Can it be rescued from its negative associations and raised to a new significance? In the early formulations of Christianity, the fathers and mothers of the faith honored the power of the original revelation of Jesus in very unique ways. Their early vision was full of an immense inner beauty, illuminating fresh ways of seeing the sacred. Eventually, however, this primordial brightness was sullied by temporal power and politics, becoming a pale representation of itself.

To regain the visionary intent of early orthodoxy, a distinction must be made between dogma or doctrine (as a necessary component of religious teaching) and its transcendental corollaries—those realities to which doctrine and dogma point. Historical orthodoxy has to be distinguished from its vertical relationship to the Transcendent. Orthodoxy is not simply an expression of correct doctrinal definitions or proper historical lineages, it is primarily about a singular relationship to God. This relationship is always transcendent to the language and symbol which expresses it. Without this understanding we reduce Truth to an abstraction and orthodoxy to a linguistic or symbolic representation—to lesser truths which are only aspects of a greater Truth. We also end up devaluing the experience of the divine Reality itself which is ultimately beyond words, symbols or abstractions.  Considered vertically, the term orthodoxy acquires an “infinite resonance,” says the Islamic scholar, Reza-Shah Kazemi. Nothing of its uniqueness or veracity is sacrificed on the horizontal level if we understand it first as a vertical relationship. Its truth attains “the touch of the Absolute precisely by opening out into the Absolute, and not remaining bound to a relative and exclusivist viewpoint” (Kazemi, 43). Understood in this way, orthodoxy provides an entry for humanity into the infinite expanse of the divine glory.

A helpful definition of orthodoxy understood from the standpoint of its historical expressions characterizes it using four fundamental elements. First, historical orthodoxy springs from a Source of Revelation—that is, the Ultimate Ground of Being understood from the distinct perspective of a particular tradition. God’s revelatory word is always made to a specific people. Second, as a means of grace, any orthodoxy is transmitted across history through a variety of forms unique to that culture. Third, historical orthodoxy possesses a way of personal verification and realization which, if followed, will lead human beings to successive levels of actualizing the Truth communicated by its Revelation. Finally, a sacred tradition is expressed through literature, the arts, and the sciences as its formal embodiment. Taken together, these determine the character of the civilization to which they belong (Pallis, 9).  Understood in this way, Christian orthodoxy in its eastern and western forms has provided the necessary foundation for Christian civilization through the centuries.

A Brief History of Early Christianity and Oriental Orthodoxy

At the heart of Christianity lies, of course, the treasury of the life and teachings of Jesus. Early Christian beliefs and practices honoring his message and mission existed in the chaotic world of the first century. In those early years, the followers of Jesus came to believe that he was both human and divine and that his origin was the second “person” of the Trinity. Through him, “God had become human in order that we might become God” (St. Athanasius). Through Jesus’ self-sacrifice on the cross, God had created a new relationship with humanity that was redemptive and restorative, and through his Resurrection our renewal in the divine image had begun, giving us the eternal life as gift and pledge. The first Christians struggled to define these teachings and themselves in such a way that the world around them might hear and comprehend such a gracious message—such good news. At the beginning, the followers of Jesus were Jews, but as the faith spread to other regions and the cosmopolitan centers of the Roman Empire it entered the non-Jewish world where Syriac and Greek were the predominant languages. The early gentile communities were small and disparate with diverse perspectives. As a result, differing viewpoints arose reflecting many of the divisions we know today.

Early Christianity existed in multiple forms, some of which were quite different from those with which we are familiar, but much closer to the original message and concerns of Jesus. One such manifestation was the branch of Christianity which moved primarily to the East and is known today as “Oriental Orthodoxy.” Through the centuries this branch extended from its Middle Eastern heartlands all across Asia. Christian merchants traded and settled along the ancient caravan and sea trade routes through Persia, Afghanistan, Central Asia, India, Sri Lanka and China (as well as to Arabia and the east African coasts), bringing the Christian message with them. As Christianity spread east along these trade routes, so did monasticism and episcopal sees, supporting the lives of the faithful. Lay folk and missionaries, priests and bishops, abbots and monks cooperated in a loose alliance over thousands of miles. At its height, between the fourth and eighth centuries, Oriental Orthodox churches were more widely spread with a greater range of activity among more diverse and developed cultures than the Churches of the West had experienced to that point.

The eastern churches lived, flourished, and then in some parts of Asia disappeared, though they have continued to exist in smaller communities throughout regions of Asia (most notably South India and the Middle East). At various times branches of Oriental Orthodoxy have also made their way to the West in immigrant communities.

In its historical development, the Oriental Orthodox churches provide us with a fresh perspective on how Christianity came to be understood and transmitted. It also gives us an alternative way of seeing and expressing orthodoxy different from the more familiar forms associated with the West (namely the Latin Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox traditions). In its original mission to the eastern cultures, we are able to see how we might more responsibly address our own contemporary world today . It is important, therefore, that we examine this oriental form of orthodoxy more carefully.

The Early Divisions of Christianity Between East and West

Christianity spread east and west, north and south from Jerusalem and Antioch, a city where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. By 300 C.E. Christian communities had formed from England to India, Ethiopia to the Black Sea. As we have seen, due to diverse forces reflecting local beliefs and practices these early communities did not comprise one, complete monolithic institution. Each region expressed a faith different in some respects from the others with its own unique perspectives, forms of worship, and collections of sacred texts. Gradually, however, versions of the story of Jesus coalesced into a commonly accepted form which shaped later Christian teaching. Still there was no single, governing church from which all took direction. Not until after the conversion of Constantine in 312 C.E. did the phenomenon of the “State Church” come to dominate western Christianity. The ideal of the “One True Church” was essentially a creation of the fourth and fifth centuries, promoted primarily by the Roman Empire’s need for uniformity and the Church’s desire for conformity.

As the Roman Empire became Christian a process began that brought diverse churches into a single institution known as “The One True Church” to mirror the single State of the Empire. Yet this very concept was the result of the conversion of the State to Christianity motivated in large part by imperial politics. As a result, beginning with the first ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E., the impetus was to draw all of the churches together into a single institution, giving the decisions of the councils the force of law and making “heresy” (deviation from those decisions) a crime. Eventually those Christian communities and churches that failed to adhere to the official views of the seven ecumenical Councils or accede compliance with its dogma or practice were expelled from the fellowship of this official Church as heretics. Eventually those Christian communities and churches that failed to adhere to the official views of the seven ecumenical Councils or accede compliance with its dogma or practice were expelled from the fellowship of this official Church. However, the Church that these Councils defined was largely confined to the major lands of the Roman Empire, with which other branches of Christianity outside the Empire eventually had little or nothing to do. These churches grew to see little need to become a spiritual version of the State, nor did they feel any particular loyalty to the State Church created by an Empire to which they did not belong.

The conclusions of the first three Councils achieved a balance with which most Christians—East and West—could live. (The Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.. defined the divinity of the Christ. The following Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. defined the humanity of Jesus. The Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E. gave formal approval for the use of the term Theotokos to honor the Blessed Virgin). This unity, however, was broken after the fourth Council at Chalcedon as a result of the Nestorian controversy when the churches of the East in the lands of Armenia, Syria, Persia and Egypt withdrew from the Greek-speaking churches of the West over theological differences concerning the precise nature of the divine-humanity of Jesus. Their emphasis focused upon the human nature of the Christ as the temple of his divinity.

From that point forward, the Oriental Orthodox branches of the Church were said to be “pre-Chalcedon.” Over the centuries, however, the original doctrinal distinctions have narrowed and largely faded from view, though cultural differences have not. In language and culture the Oriental Orthodox churches have remained much closer to their Middle Eastern roots and in many respects preserved a way of life distinct from the more distant branches of Christianity in the West. An understanding of these distinctive features is important if we are to appreciate the implications that Oriental Orthodoxy has for the West today.

Distinctive Features of Early Oriental Orthodoxy

Due to its singular history, the Oriental Orthodox churches developed certain responses to their cultural environment which are of particular importance today, especially for those who perhaps feel estranged from western Christianity. The following features outline these important distinctives:

Independence from the political state and its power structure. Because Oriental Orthodoxy never became an arm of the political state, it was never a State church or a single monolithic entity, nor did it seek for temporal power over the lands and cultures in which it thrived. It could express, therefore, a version of orthodoxy that refrained from coercion and conformity as the price for maintaining its ecclesiastical position. Throughout its history it remained a confederation of autonomous churches in much the same way the Celtic churches did in the far West because they too lay outside Roman rule. From 489 C.E. onwards the churches of the East had no serious ties to the Church in the West. This independence allowed them to freely communicate a vision of the story of Jesus and of Christianity relevant to their own eastern cultures.

Doctrinal pluralism and formal diversity. Openness and diversity, important characteristics of early Oriental Orthodoxy, meant that the eastern churches did not seek for doctrinal conformity or ecclesiastical uniformity. They continued to exist in a plurality of compatible forms and perspectives which reflected their generous understanding of the Christian revelation. In contrast, having won the battle to convert the Roman Empire, such theologians as St. Augustine sought to define Christianity as “the City of God” at the center of temporal power from which all other authority must be excluded. The churches of the East never adopted such a theological system nor attempted to create a theocracy. As a result, diverse expressions developed in response to the growing needs of its mission to the peoples of Asia, which gave expression to a unique vision of Jesus and the Christian revelation.

An anthropology of hope and a soteriology of confidence. Again, in contrast to the Latin West, Oriental Orthodoxy continued to develope a theological perspective which reflected hope and confidence. Their vision, shared in large part with most of the patristic age, acquired a unique form in direct response to the religions traditions of Asia (Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Taoism). The churches of the East, for example, developed a theology free from St. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin (in which humanity is described as hopelessly wicked and undeserving of grace). Instead it emphasized a powerful doctrine of the original nature of humanity grounded in divine goodness. The Image of God (imageo dei) had indeed been lost, but God, who longs for us and has searched us out, had restored it to us again by grace. Christian theology was therefore a celebration of hope and not a form of moral penance stressing condemnation.

A theological dialectic through religious dialogue with other faith traditions. True to their own unique spirit the churches of the East never sought to exclude and suppress other faiths by dominating their cultural worlds. Oriental Orthodoxy did not perceive other faith traditions as enemies, but as worthy partners in an on-going exploration of the sacred. They engaged in meaningful dialogue instead of dispute, working out a way to function side-by-side, while continuing an active witness to the revelation of Jesus. Respectful engagement with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Taoism allowed the churches of the East to develop a theology in which the religious concerns of the peoples of Asia were addressed without denying their truth. For example, the offer of salvation through Jesus was expressed as a new form of liberation from karma, reincarnation, and the power of death, which eastern  traditions had diagnosed to be crucial to the human condition.

We can now see that early Oriental Orthodoxy responded to the dynamic cultures of the ancient East with an alternative vision of Christianity. That such responses existed and flourished early on is a hopeful sign that today it can do so once again. Perhaps these original understandings can assist us in finding a new way of being orthodox by which we can engage the dynamic cultures and diverse needs of the modern West more responsively.

Continue to: Part III