Mother Church of Eastern Orthodoxy,
Built by Justinian around 500 AD and still standing.
I am reading the Norwich three-volume history of the Byzantine Empire for the third time. I found the condensed version first and enjoyed that edition. The complete version is around 1600 pages of soap opera, tragedy, triumph, defeats, and finally ruin.
Byzantium was a village located in a perfect spot for defense and trade when Constantine the Great fought to unite the Roman Empire under his rule. He chose Byzantium as the New Rome, which became known as Constantinople, Istanbul, Turkey today. Constantine established a Christian empire which lasted 1100 years.
The Christian Church began in the East and flourished there before moving toward the West. The long history of Muslim conquest of those Christian lands has made us forget where the faith was once so strong: Northern Africa, Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa.
Some of the major controversies in Eastern Orthodoxy involved its relationship with the papacy, the Two Natures of Christ, and icons. The factions in the Two Natures included Monophysites (Christ having one divine nature), Monothelites (one will, never a major fad), and the Orthodox (Two Natures in One Person). Muslim and Jewish influence probably encouraged the icon clashes. Also the Monophysites did not want to see the divine nature of Christ portrayed as an image, especially a statue. There were two extremes in the icon battle. The iconodules worshiped the icons and even made them godparents at baptisms. The iconoclasts wanted all images destroyed - and many priceless works of art were.
The early Councils were held in the East because the Christian Church was Eastern. Look at the names and you will find theer locations near Constantinople: Nicea (325 and 382), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451).
Eastern Orthodoxy, nevertheless, is much more a mystical tradition than a confessional one. Emperors in Constantinople richly endowed monasteries. Some retired from office to serve as monks. The mystical tradition is experiential rather than doctrinal. I remember asking an Eastern Orthodox priest about Purgatory and the Assumption of Mary. He seemed quite willing to waffle about both until I pinned him down. (Yes to both.)
In contrast, the West has clearly defined doctrines. Lutherans are the most blessed because their divisions after the death of Luther caused them to develop the Book of Concord and the Formula of Concord under the leadership of Martin Chemnitz. No other denomination has such a unified and Biblical set of confessions. The confessions in the Reformed tradition contradict each other. The Church of Rome claims papal infallibility in doctrine but has anathemetized one or more of its own infallible popes.
The Appeal of Eastern Orthodoxy
Why does Eastern Orthodoxy appeal to so many people that ELCA, LCMS, and ELDONA ministers are guided by Constantinople rather than Wittenberg?
The mystical tradition is far more flexible than a confessional one in establishing outward unity. The current focal point for exiting Lutherans is infant communion, following the Greek Orthodoxy. Notice that infant communion is not a doctrine but a practice. The crypto-EO ministers definitely use doctrinal arguments to advance their cause, but the main one is rationalistic. As an ELCA worship leader said at Notre Dame in the late 1970's: "We give babies Holy Baptism. Why withhold the other sacrament?"
One person commented on ELDONA and infant communion said, "I think they are opposed to it." But the farm team for ELDONA, the soi-disant Augustana Ministerium, featured the biggest advocate of infant communion (Gary Gehlbach) as a speaker. He has a mega-site devoted to his favorite topic. Draw your own conclusions.
Eastern Orthodoxy has the added advantage of being exotic, elaborate in ritual, and new to most Lutherans. I used to attend Greek Orthodox services in Moline with the future Mrs. Ichabod. We enjoyed seeing the services, especially since we had Greek friends at Augustana College, but no one asked us to join. Nor would that thought have entered our minds. I never imagined that Lutherans would cross over, join the Eastern Orthodox clergy, and recruit more Lutherans to join.
EO Is UnFuller and UnWillow Creek
ELCA, Missouri, WELS, and the ELS have defined themselves through the gurus they admire at Fuller Seminary, Saddleback, and Willow Creek. The ELS has dabbled too, and even invited CG Doofus Robert Hartman to wash their brains with CG theories.
Fuller and WC promote rationalism, not worship. The Sneaker Services are designed not be be worship but entertainment. WC had no cross outside or inside when I visited with Mrs. Ichabod and Ichabod Jr. I doubt whether their anti-worship, anti-liturgy, anti-creed formula has changed. Since the Lutherans--especially the conservative synods--have run from their own heritage, it is only natural for ritual-starved clergy and laity to head toward Eastern Orthodoxy.
EO Encouraged at Ft. Wayne and St. Louis
As I suspected, Lutherans do not become Eastern Orthodoxy without some prompting. Some of the prompting comes from the outside or from the inner turmoil a Lutheran feels in a non-Lutheran Lutheran synod. Professors are encouraging the move to Eastern Orthodoxy as well.
Eastern Orthodoxy is closely allied with the Church of Rome. I enjoyed how Pope John Paul II called Eastern Orthodoxy a "defective church." The new pope has repeated the charge. In spite of their differences, they share one another's doctrinal errors. Therefore, joining Eastern Orthodoxy may not be the same as poping, but it is at least the equivalent of semi-poping.
