Joshua Schooping is a Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor, who had formerly been an Eastern Orthodox priest. Here he has produced a well-written critique of his former denomination, highlighting the most important and egregious errors within Eastern Orthodoxy.
Click to Expand Table of Contents
Chapter 1 of Part I - The Ravings of an Apostate, is an account of Schooping's journey out of the Eastern Orthodox priesthood. It began with his discovery that, contrary to the common Orthodox position, the early Church taught Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Then, during the Pandemic, to aid in catechizing his congregation and others, he compiled canons from official Orthodox confessions, and some other authoritative resources, and published the work under the title The Holy Standards.
This effort led him to conclude that formally, Orthodoxy teaches "If you are not an Eastern Orthodox Christian, then neither are you in a church nor even a Christian. Also, if you will not bow to and kiss images with affection, then you are going to hell" (pg. 22). This, combined with other factors, led Schooping to an impasse:
Disillusioned - Chapter 1, pg. 22
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), the 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.
In Part II's Introduction - A Brief Outline of the Canonical Argument, Schooping outlines what he labels the "canonical argument", which is an attempt to move the critique of Orthodoxy onto more objective grounds:
Disillusioned - Part II Introduction, pg. 28
Therefore, an important question prior to addressing issues related to Eastern Orthodoxy is that of trying to get a grasp of what I call "the canonical argument". For almost every human being has a different opinion from another human being, and Orthodox bishops, priests, deacons, and laypeople are no exception. There are major groupings of opinions amongst some of these, and there are trends in opinions that come and go over time. This situation make a non-impressionistic assessment and critique of the reality of the EO almost impossible. In order to escape this problem, then, one must look at formal, authoritative statements that the EO has made that carry more authority than any given opinion that an individual, whether ordained or lay, might make. This is basically another way of holding the Eastern Orthodox accountable to their own principle of Synodality or Conciliarism.
Chapter 1 - Sect: The Inextricably Exclusive Ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, covers the exclusivistic nature of Orthodoxy, wherein they formally declare themselves to be the only true Church. Schooping cites many examples to establish this, including:
Disillusioned - Chapter 1, pg. 37
The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, another canonical text read yearly (at least is called to be read yearly, but often is not either from laziness, inconvenience, unpopularity, or shame), pronounces anathema against all that "innovate" or "enact" anything "outside of Church Tradition and the teaching and institution of the holy and ever-memorable fathers" (The Holy Standards, pg 530). It also pronounces an anathema against those who do not "confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in the Orthodox style... shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized" (The Holy Standards, pg 567). It even pronounces in the following paragraph an anathema against those who do not affirm that Christ had leavened bread at the Mystic [Last] Supper, while also condemning the Armenian Orthodox Church!
The final two anathemas from the Synodikon militate against any who would call the Roman Pope the head of the Church (The Holy Standards, pg 568)...
Then, after discussing how the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox all make similar exclusivistic claims to be the one true Church in apostolic succession, Schooping writes:
Disillusioned - Chapter 1, pg. 40
The foregoing sends credulous inquirers and would-be defenders of the faith on a man-centered hunt to find out which "one true Church" is really the "one true Church", according to the investigator's (gasp!) private judgment. Now it requires a PhD in Church history and theology together with mastery of multiple languages, not to mention access to all the relevant resources, to find out whether one is even in the Church and therefore saved! But thankfully St. Paul says: (Romans 10:8-13)
Chapter 2 - Iconology and Imperial Captivity: A Case Study of the Metamorphosis of Theology in the Romano-Byzantine Church, begins by distinguishing between iconoclasm and aniconism, both of which are distinct from the Byzantine concept of iconodulia (veneration of religious imagery):
Disillusioned - Chapter 2, pg. 45
Iconoclasm refers to the removal and destruction of religious imagery, which is to say a total rejection of it. Aniconism is that which distinguishes between religiously themed visual art, on the one hand, which it accepts as legitimate, and the religious use of such art of the purposes of symbolic, semiotic, or representative veneration, which it rejects.
Schooping then argues as to what does not count as early evidence for iconodulia, and also provides a definition for the Byzantine iconodulia practiced by Imperialist denominations like the East Orthodox and Catholic Churches:
Disillusioned - Chapter 2, pg. 46
A few further clarifications will be helpful here at the beginning, one being that early architecture that has religiously themed art on its walls (e.g. at Dura-Europos) does not serve as evidence for iconodulia, iconodulia being the religious veneration of representative images and not their mere presence. Byzantine iconodulia is defined as the canonically imposed necessity of venerated religious images, denial of which results in the Church's formal use of the Keys to anathematize, i.e. curse one to damnation....
It is also necessary to state that the special commands of God to, say, erect statues of cherubim or set up a bronze serpent, did not include any permission to religiously venerate them, so likewise cannot be evidence for Byzantine iconodulia. Nor did they serve as case laws revealing general legal or moral principles for the production or use of other such similar images. These constructions were "special" commands, i.e. unique commands that were bound in their application to the occasion of that specific circumstance.
Schooping then mentions that various early Church writers were against iconodulia, such as Tertullian (160-220 AD), Origen (185-253 AD), and Arnobius (255-330 AD). Schooping also notes that:
Disillusioned - Chapter 2, pg. 48
Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD) and Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD) actually selected out and published Origen's (a fortiori) rejection of Byzantine iconodulia, including the semiotic view, arguing that much less than God's Commandments forbidden, even "common sense, nevertheless, forbids us to think that God is by any means corruptible matter, or that He is honoured when he is fashioned by men in forms of dead matter, supposed to pictorially or symbolically represent Him" (Basil and Gregory, The Philocalia of Origen, Chapter 19).
Schooping then establishes that many Pagan apologists, such as Celsus (2nd century), Porphyry (234-305 AD), and Julian the Apostate (331-363 AD) were aware of the symbolic view of image worship, and argued that when they appeared to worship images of their gods, they were actually reverencing the item as a representative of the god, which was certainly not the item. That is to say, they were not naïvely worshipping stone and wood as God - instead, they argued the same semiotic view later propounded by supporters of Byzantine iconodulia.
Next, this chapter contains a critique of the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD), which is the 7th ecumenical council in both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and established a mandate for venerating images with actual affection, upon pain of anathema. Anathema is then explicitly defined in the council as, "nothing less than complete separation from God" (pg. 52). Schooping also notes that the council supports veneration of images of human beings and angels, even though Scripture explicitly rejects such veneration, even when it is offered directly (rather than through images) in Acts 10:25-26, and Revelation 22:8-9.
Finally, the chapter ends with a brief general critique of image veneration, including the following insightful excerpt:
Disillusioned - Chapter 2, pg. 56-57
In closing, we have not dealt at length here with silly questions about, say, whether or not "matter matters", for matter has always mattered, matter is not evil, and matter as such was never the reason why man was forbidden to worship through it. The Scriptural reason is that we do not venerate matter because matter is not alive, and so therefore man is not to use it as an aid to worship:
Psalm 135:15-18
15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands.
16 They have mouths, but do not speak; they have eyes, but do not see;
17 They have ears, but do not hear, nor is there any breath in their mouths.
18 Those who make them become like them, so do all who trust in them.
Note that the logic has nothing to do with matter being evil, corrupt, fallen, or anything negative at all. Nor is it because God refused to work through matter or associate Himself with matter during Old Testament times, for throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God has revealed Himself through materiality, whether that were a Burning Bush, a Cloud, or being Personally present in the Temple itself.
Chapter 3 - Ad Hoc: Assessing John of Damascus' Argument for Icon Veneration, addresses the work of John of Damascus (675-749 AD), who wrote three famous works, sometimes called Three Treatises on the Divine Images, supporting the doctrine of Byzantine iconodulia.
Schooping cites Psalm 115:4-8, 135:15-18, Isaiah 44:9, 44:18-20, 46:7-8, Jeremiah 10:14-15, 51:17-18, and Habakkuk 2:18-19 to support that "Biblically, the problem of idols is not merely that they depict, nor even that they are man-made, though this also is a key feature of their prohibition, but that matter as such is not living" (pg 68). Schooping also notes that this carries over into the New Testament (Revelation 9:20), and Christians after the incarnation are still warned against idolatry (1 John 5:20-21).
In this chapter, Schooping also points out a logical problem with merely "venerating" an image of Christ:
Disillusioned - Chapter 3, pg. 74
There is another problem that arises as well, that of the asymmetry in saying that what is merely the veneration of an image of Jesus somehow intensifies to become worship of Jesus Himself. Is he "venerating" the image as matter or is he "worshipping" Jesus as God? As noted above, John of Damascus appears to say both. But what would connect these two actions, of veneration which becomes worship? What is this process of intensification? And if there is no intensification, then the veneration of the image transfers to Christ as mere veneration and not proper worship, which would be blasphemous. If it were not that the incondules took this as so ultimately serious and condemned to hell all those who refused to agree with them, it would be almost too absurd to consider.
Chapter 4 - Reshaming Eve: The Eastern Orthodox Dishonoring of the Theotokos, is a critique of the Mariolatry in Eastern Orthodoxy. Schooping beings with a critique of the Akathist Hymn, which "is sung formally in the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of assigned Church Services during Lent" (pg. 77). This section is excellent, and was the inspiration for this article, where I tried to do the same thing, albeit less articulately.
Schooping then covers three feast days associated with events in Mary's life throughout the liturgical year in the Eastern Orthodox Church - her entry into the Temple, her birth, and her dormition. Of "The Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple", he writes:
Disillusioned - Chapter 4, pg. 83
Leaving aside without comment the far-fetched belief among the Eastern Orthodox that Mary literally lived for years in the Holy of Holies, throughout the feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos, with of its imagery from the Temple, Mary is described in the canonical texts as an "acceptable sacrifice" (Mattins, Canticle Five, Second Canon, pg 182; cf. 164, 189), a consecrated offering (pg 164), and a sweet-smelling incense to God (pg 171). This sacrifice of Mary is also cast in animal sacrifice language, "a three-year old victim of sacrifice, holy and utterly without blemish" (Mattins, Canticle Three, Second Canon, pg 177; cf. 180, 182). She is called "the ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish" (pg 178). Now recall that a ewe lamb without blemish is a sin offering (Numbers 6:14), as is the dove offering (Leviticus 14:22, 30-31). Thus the Theotokos is portrayed as a sin offering for mankind...
He also quotes from Gregory Palamas (1296-1357 AD), an extremely influential Eastern Orthodox Saint, who ties the Entrance of the Theotokos into his practice of Hesychasm:
Disillusioned - Chapter 4, pg. 87-89
In his great homily on the Entrance, Gregory anchors his ascetical philosophy of hesychasm on the Theotokos, a fact which may help explain elements of his motivation for the manner of developing this distinctly soteriological brand of Mariology. For as he states of Mary, "she constructed a new and indescribable way to heaven, which I would call silence of the mind" (Homily 53, pg 441).
Keeping in mind that this is considered literally true by the Eastern Orthodox, the full paragraph of the foregoing quote reads [with annotations]:
The all-pure Virgin threw off those ties [of earthly matters] from the very beginning of her life, and withdrew from people. She escaped from a blameworthy way of life, and chose to live in solitude out of sight of all, inside the sanctuary [the holy of holies in the Temple]. There, having loosed every bond with material things, shaken off every tie and even risen above sympathy towards her own body, she united her mind with its turning towards itself and attention, and with unceasing holy prayer. Having become her own mistress by this means, and being established above the jumble of thoughts in all their different guises, and above absolutely every form of being, she constructed a new and indescribable way to heaven, which I would call silence of the mind. Intent upon this silence, she flew high above all created things, saw God's glory more clearly than Moses, and beheld divine grace, which is not at all within the capacity of men's senses, but is a gracious and holy sight for spotless souls and minds. Partaking of this vision, she became, according to the sacred hymnographers, a radiant cloud of the truly living water, the dawn of the mystical day, and the fiery chariot of the the Word. (Gregory Palamas, Homily 53, "On the Entry of the Theotokos into the Holy of Holies II", paragraph 59, pgs 441-442)
Next, Schooping covers "The Birth of our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos", of which Schooping notes "Soteriological confusion also abounds as it claims of Mary's mother Ann, that "by her [Ann's] birthgiving she overthrows the curse of Adam" (Birth, Small Vespers, at Lord, I have cried, pg 99)" (pg. 94).
Then, "The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary" is covered. Of it, Schooping writes:
Disillusioned - Chapter 4, pg. 98-99
In addition to the kinds of observations drawn from the prior sections, this feast begins by saying of the Theotokos: "She is the salvation of the world" (Small Vespers, at Lord, I have cried, pg 504). Confusing soteriological agency, it further says of her that, "by thy deathless Dormition thou hast sanctified the whole world" (pg 504). More than this, and regarding how she came to the Mother of God, she "by reason of her surpassing purity became the receiver of the everlasting Essence" (pg 505, cf. 508).
She is also called "the source of life", and that her "tomb itself becomes a ladder to heaven" (Great Vespers, at Lord I have cried, pg 506). She is called "the source of Life" (pg 507, cf. 509), and "the salvation of the faithful and hope of our souls" (pg 509). Again confusing soteriological agency, it says the world was "restored to life by her holy Dormition" (Lity, pg 509).
Finally, this chapter addresses an Eastern Orthodox prayer book entitled Mother of Light, which contains Marian prayers which were supposedly composed around the ninth century, along with Theodore the Studite's (759-826 AD) poem, A Canon to the All-Holy Theotokos, in which Mary is framed as a mediator between a ruthless Christ, and a desperate sinner.
Chapter 5 - Mary, A Novel way: How Gregory Palamas Grounds Access to Salvation and Hesychasm on the Theotokos, critiques the Mariology of Gregory Palamas, noting, amongst other examples, that in his Homily 37 On the Dormition, Gregory asserts that "No one can come to God unless he is truly illuminated by her" (pg. 117), and "So many as will share in God will do so through her... She is the cause of what preceded her, the protectress of what comes after her, and she procures eternity" (pg. 118).
Chapter 6 - Anathema: Eastern Orthodoxy and the Ritual Cursing of All Other Christians, concerns the Synodikon, mentioned already in Chapter 1, which is appointed to be read on the first Sunday of Lent. The chapter begins by establishing the damning nature of an "anathema" in official Orthodox theology, once again noting that the Second Council of Nicaea states "Now anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God" (pg. 127). The same council regards those who refuse to venerate icons as "God-forsaken", and "God-hated heretics" (pg. 128).
Schooping then covers some positions which receive the anathema in the Synodikon:
Disillusioned - Chapter 6, pg. 129-130
Returning more directly to the Synodikon, and having clearly in mind what is meant by anathema, it clearly states in the section from 1583, signed by the three chiefest Patriarchs, of Constantinople (and so Russia by inclusion for at the time it was a Metropolia under Constantinople), Alexandria, and Jerusalem, respectively, concerning all who are not in the Eastern Church:
That whoever does not confess with heart and mind that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel, shall be outside our Church and shall be anathematized.
In other words, not being in the Orthodox Church, and affirming the filioque, means that you are consistently and formally cursed to perdition by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Regarding those who take Communion:
That whoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystic Supper had unleavened bread (made with yeast), like that of the Jews, and no leavened bread, that is to say, bread raised with yeast, let him depart far from us and let him be anathema as one having Jewish views and those of Apolinarios and bringing dogmas of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be doubly anathema.
In other words, anyone who doesn't use leavened bread for Communion is now confirmed to be going to hell. Furthermore, after cursing all Roman Catholics, and regarding all those who do not use Eastern customs or the Eastern calendar:
That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion (an ecclesiastical calendar prescribing feastdays and fasting periods) with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and New Menologion (i.e. the Gregorian calendar) of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the congregation of the Faithful.
In other words, not using the right calendar, or celebrating Pascha (Easter) on a different day, places one in hell, according to the formal and unchangeable pronouncement of the Eastern Church.
Schooping then notes that the Eastern Orthodox, by having added these things to the Gospel, have fallen victim to the Galatian heresy, as recorded in Galatians 4:8-11. Schooping also points out that, by mandating their calendar, they have explicitly violated Colossians 2:16-17, which says "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday".
Chapter 7 - Irenaeus' High Mariology: What it Does Not Prove, is a short essay concerning two passages from Irenaeus's (130-200 AD) work Against Heresies, which display a high view of Mary. Schooping argues that they don't approach the far higher Eastern Orthodox conception of Mary.
Chapter 8 - Anachronism: Cyprian, Schism, Church Unity, and the Imperial Metamorphosis of Ecclesiology, is a longer essay on Cyprian's (200-258 AD) work On the Unity of the Church, which was composed in the wake of the Decian persecutions, in response to a bishop named Novation (200-258 AD), who refused to allow lapsed heretics who apostatized under the persecution back into the congregation. Schooping points out the flaws in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox anachronistic hijacking of this work is.
Chapter 9 - Thus Sayeth the Church? Irenaeus and Presuppositionalism, contrasts what Schooping labels "Eastern Orthodox Presuppositionalism" - wherein the Eastern Orthodox Church is appealed to as the epistemic basis for knowledge and certainty - with "Reformed Presuppositionalism" - wherein the Word of God in Scripture is appealed to as the basis for knowledge and epistemic certainty.
This chapter contains a discussion on the Canon of Scripture, which culminates with the following helpful summary of the self-attesting nature of Scripture:
Disillusioned - Chapter 9, pg. 180
In other words, if there are reasons which show that the Scriptures are intrinsically authoritative, then those same reasons ought to induce us to agree that they are intrinsically authoritative. The Church's authority is thus shown to be extraneous in settling the matter. But if those arguments themselves depend upon the authority of the Church, then the authority of the Scriptures, i.e. their canonical status, is consequently shown to be dependent upon the Church's logically prior authority. This means the Church has elevated itself above God's Word in order to render Scripture authoritative, and not in a way based on rational considerations but on ecclesiological authority. For if there were arguments that would induce the canon to be known to the Church, then those same arguments ought to enable anyone to concur on the strength of those arguments, not bare authority, thus showing that the Church lends no formal authority to the authenticity of the canon.
But since the Word of God is by its very nature the self-attesting precondition of certain knowledge, as an inbreaking of the infinite mind and will of God, it does not depend upon any arguments from some other authority. Therefore, the Church itself must submit to the self-evidently authoritative nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God, otherwise they make god's Word dependent upon the testimony and word of the Church, which in doing the Church takes authority over God's Word and so makes the Creator's authority subservient to the creature's, which is absurd and blasphemous. Tragically, the Eastern Orthodox Presuppositionalist position, in asserting their hyper-ecclesiology, functionally denies the self-attesting and authoritative nature and status of God's Word.
This book, especially the notable chapters highlighted below, is incredibly valuable. It is the best critique of Eastern Orthodoxy in book form that I am aware of, and I highly recommend it for those who intend to engage with the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy.