Looking East: Why Not Orthodoxy?

I recently asked a good friend what topic he'd like to see me address.  He asked:

"Why aren't you Orthodox?"

It is a very fair question. There are many “Cradle Catholics” who have never asked themselves why they –as adults - are Catholic and not anything else.  Is it just because I was raised this way?

At the same time, many Christians raised in Evangelicalism begin a hard journey when they read the writings of the ancient Christian church and find a world which looks startlingly like Catholicism and Orthodoxy.  For those who feel conscience-bound to enter that world, the decision between Catholicism and Orthodoxy often becomes a crucial fork in the road.

So why am I not Orthodox?  There are several avenues I could travel down.  But today I'd like to examine the one core reason.


Which One?

Now, this is often presented as a choice between two distinct, monolithic options.  You have Catholicism on one side and Eastern Orthodoxy on the other.  However, it’s not so simple.  The world of Orthodoxy is not one cohesive thing.  Upon examination you are confronted with multiple claimants to the title of true apostolic teaching.

First you have the Eastern Orthodox communion.  This is the largest of the Orthodox bodies, and the one people think of when they hear "Orthodoxy".  This group is comprised of a couple dozen smaller regional churches who

recognize the first seven ecumenical councils. They somewhat loosely follow the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

But then there are smaller ecclesiastical bodies like the Coptic Church of Alexandria and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.  They are a distinct association of  Orthodox churches found in eastern Africa and India.  They have a unique doctrine concerning Christ’s nature which led them to reject the fifth ecumenical council in 451AD.   

A similar thing can be said of the Assyrian Church of the East.  They only recognize the first three ecumenical councils because they hold to a form of Nestorianism.  They have been a distinct entity since 431AD.

Now, each of these different groups believe themselves to be the true standard bearers of apostolic tradition.  They each look at one another and say,  “You have strayed from the true apostolic faith."

So if a person told me he was considering Eastern Orthodoxy, my first question would be… which one?  And how did you choose?

A Similar Problem:

Let's zoom out for a moment.

Many Protestants look at the disunity within their corner of the Christian world and realize Sola Scriptura simply doesn't work.  For there to be any sort of cohesion or unity in the faith, there must be a visible, interpretive authority which Christians can gather around.  They find their answer in the principle of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession.

But then one observes something similar when looking at those communions who have Apostolic Succession.  That is to say, under Sola Scriptura every individual can go his own way and there is no consistent way of explaining why he shouldn't. 

Well, the principle Apostolic succession has the virtue of numerically reducing the problem down to the bishops. However, there is still no principled way of telling the bishop that he can't break away if he thinks the other patriarchates have abandoned the true faith. 

Looking at this landscape I am struck by the need for some distinctive, objective marker of which communion I am supposed to join and which doctrines I am supposed to believe.  Some principled way of saying, “That one.”

It would need to be a single, visible place where the buck finally stops.  Someone who is charged even with the care of the other bishops.  Someone who is guaranteed not to go astray because of some special protection from the Holy Spirit. 


Sitting on a Rock:

This brings me back to some posts I made a long while ago – [here], [here], and [here].  What I tried to show in those essays is evidence from Scripture and post-biblical history that the ministry of Peter is that objective marker. 

To recap, it was Peter whose name was changed to “rock”.  It was to Peter that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom.  It was Peter who was charged with strengthening the other Apostles.  And it was Peter who was specifically called out to feed Christ’s sheep.   [Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:31, John 21:15]

And down through history I can see the ministry of Peter’s successor serving at the court of final appeal, the stamp of approval, and the standard bearer of Christian truth.  While this ministry has been exercised (and sometimes abused) in various ways in history, the fact remains that the Petrine ministry is part of the Church's divine blueprint.

So – in my estimation – that is the objective marker.

Navigating the Fork:

Therefore, if I met someone who was at the crossroads between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - and was leaning toward Orthodoxy - I would have two questions:

1. Which one? And how did you decide?
2. What did Christ intend in regards to the Petrine ministry?

That office has been the staffed by some real jerks, and some occasional flakes, but the bottom line is that Jesus intended the Church to have Peter.