Download Chapter IX – 600 Years in the East

Chapter IX – 600 Years in the East
A – According to the Fathers – The next two chapters will look at 600 years, roughly 450 to
1050 in both the East and the West. We really need to look at the two separately, because the
issues that arise in the Greek speaking East and the Latin speaking West are so different. The
communication between the two regions comes almost to a halt – the language barrier gets in the
way, the Roman Empire falls apart due to the barbarian invasions so political ties are cut, and
then theological issues move in different directions.
We will start with the history of the Eastern Church, mainly because there are a few
things that happen that are vitally important not just to Church history, but world history. Also,
once we return to the Western Church, that’s where we will basically stay for the rest of this
history class, so this is our last gasp of looking at Eastern Orthodoxy (except in passing).
As we will see, even following the Council of Chalcedon (451), the East was fighting. In
the past 120-130 years scandal and debate and fight had raged throughout the Greek speaking
Church leading to all the Church Councils that we have looked at. There would be another 300
years of fighting Peace was wanted. And as a result, the East starts to make a move towards
finding a way to establish peace and stability.
Over the next few centuries, the Eastern Orthodox becomes the ultimate Conservative
Church. In order to ensure that heresy is prevented, the Eastern Orthodox theologians refuse to
use any new language or ways of describing the truths of the faith. Rather, if you are going to
say something, say it the way it was said before. The key idea here is the phrase “according to
the Fathers.” If you wanted to comment on an issue or topic, you cited one of the great Fathers
of the Church; you used their language. That way you knew that you were speaking rightly,
properly, and not falling into heresy.
The results of this are interesting. It does help provide quite a bit of unity, conformity,
and stability. An example of this is the Liturgy of John Chysostom. It’s been used by the East
for over 1600 years – because John was a respected Father. We’ll just say things the way he said
them so that we know they are okay. And it’s used everywhere. If you go into an Eastern
Orthodox Church in Edmond, New York, Istanbul, India, or wherever, you’re 98% of the time
going to run into John’s liturgy. That helps to provide great continuity. Also, new, strange ideas
very, very rarely ever take root in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The battles we went through in
the 50s through the 70s never touched the Eastern Orthodox Church, because the liberal ways of
speaking about Scripture were eliminated as possibilities before they could even be considered –
because the Fathers never spoke that way. The Fathers say that the Scripture is the Word of God
– so language which says “Scripture contains the Word of God” – which allows a person to
ignore whatever part of Scripture he doesn’t like – is immediately ruled out of bounds and
wrong.
As I am a historian, you can guess that there are many aspects of this attitude that I
approve of. I love reading the Early Church Fathers, and there is a great wealth of knowledge
and wisdom there. However, there are two weaknesses that become revealed in the Eastern
Orthodox approach. The first, and larger of these from a Lutheran Perspective, is how the
Fathers are handled. It seems as though sometimes the East will simply look to the Fathers
rather than to the Scripture – and that the respect given to the Fathers boarders on Saint-worship.
There is such respect for the early theologians that Scripture can be overlooked sometimes. In
the 16th Century, this was part of the reason why the Lutherans weren’t able to establish
communion with the Eastern Orthodox Bishops – from the Lutheran perspective the East wasn’t
Sola Scriptura enough. The other problem is that the focus on maintaining the same language at
all costs makes the Church inflexible and hard to approach. The usage of words change over
time and thus there is room to approach the truths of God with language that is understandable to
folks at large. While some retention of language is good and beneficial (there’s nothing wrong
with people knowing that the Church isn’t like the world out there), making language fixed can
prevent the Church from handling and addressing issues of the day. Granted, that can be a good
thing for those inside the Church (it keeps them safe from heresy), but also it can be a weakness
when it comes to the role of the Church in speaking out in the world at large.
Basically, what we see happening is the Eastern Orthodox Church circling the wagons.
They are simply going to keep things static. They are going to use the wording that the Fathers
used to keep things all sure and safe. However, there will be some struggle in finalizing the
language which is to be used. Also, we will see some of the ways in which this attitude prevents
the East from handling the problems that they will encounter.
B – The “Mono”isms and the Eastern Split Confirmed – In 451 the Council of Chalcedon
affirmed that Jesus is indeed both true God and true Man – that He has two natures, both Human
and Divine in One Person. Not everyone liked this type of language still – they thought it
sounded too Nestorian. In Egypt and in Syria a movement which was called “monophysite” or
“one-nature” arose which refused to speak of two natures in Christ. For 100 years in the East
this controversy rages – and there was much discussion. Supporters of Chalcedon worked hard
to assure the monophysites that they weren’t dividing Christ up into parts and making Him less
God.
In the middle of all this a remarkable emperor takes over in Constantinople. Justinian I
comes to reign in 527. He is a fantastic Emperor – and one of the main reasons why the “East”
never goes through a “dark ages”. Justinian reworks and updates the legal code, he solidifies
knowledge and learning in the lands still under his control (basically where those slobbering
Germans and Danes hadn’t shown up and messed everything us). He also spends a great deal of
effort trying to settle down this division in the Church. He does a lot of leg work (the details of
which we won’t go into here), but no one ever is happy. Finally, he calls another Ecumenical
Council in 553. However, by this time, the west isn’t really involved in the Council. The
Germans have cut the West off politically from the East, so there’s no real political drive for
unity. And theologically, language and distance has separated the West from the East. The Pope
refuses to be involved (even though the pope has basically kidnapped him and kept in him prison
at Constantinople). This council confirms Chalcedon, and basically finally alienates the Coptic
(Egptian) and Syrian Churches, and also an Armenian Church that follows a monophysite idea
(although none of these groups can get along). Then the Emperor has had enough. He starts
persecuting Monophysites, and the break is firmly established. Also, this council finally
condemns a lot of the wider ranging theological thought of the early Church (like some of the
strange things Origen said), really tightening up the idea of what is acceptable doctrine.
Struggles and fights continue on. But there is a break in the fighting, because the areas
where there are a lot of monophysites all get conquered. By 600 the Empire is falling apart.
Like the West two centuries before, its neighbors start moving in on its territory. Persia starts
coming in and taking over territory. Zoroastorians sack Jerusalem in 614 and run off with the
relics there, including the “true cross”. Things are going rough for the Eastern Empire. As such,
the Empire starts pulling money out of the Church (because it is a state Church) to pay for the
defense of the Empire. There is a resurgence, and by 630 the Bishops and the Emperor start
gaining victories, even getting their relics back. But, this also came with a problem – suddenly
these other Churches are back in the Empire, and how are they to be handled?
Two other “mono-isms” arise during this time as ways of trying to satisfy all involved.
The first was monoenergism. Monoenergism states that there was only one working – one
“energy” in Jesus. The Emperor (not Justinian, one of his descendents) puts this idea forth, and
the monophysities like it – but there are problems. Again, we need Jesus to be both God and
Man to win salvation, and so if the Man Jesus doesn’t obey God – it doesn’t do any good for
men. Then the move goes towards monothelitism, which is language which says that there is
only one will in Jesus. Again, this goes all the way back to Chalcedon – if Jesus doesn’t have a
human will, He doesn’t redeem human beings who have a will.
Eventually another Council is called in 680 at Constantinople. Monoenergism and
monothelitism are rejected because they seem to attack Christ’s human nature. The
Monophysities basically ignore all of this and kept on saying what they had been saying for the
past 200 years. Constantinople has a few folks who persist on in supporting monothelitism, but
by the early 700s this has fallen away. Over 250 years of struggle to unite these varying
Christologies end without any peace or reconciliation. But the struggle does affect how the
Eastern Orthodox view things. They basically conclude that new language and new terms don’t
bring peace – so they start to codify and fix the language they use. Also, this whole discussion
helps to alienate the East and the West. The Popes don’t like the Emperor in Constantinople
acting so heavy handed with them, especially on struggles that don’t really impact them (other
than a bit of northern Italy, this stuff really doesn’t ever impact anywhere in the Latin speaking
world). However, other problems arise in the East that threatens the Empire and the faith far
more than the continuing Christological Controversies.
C – The Rise of Mohammed, heretic? – Another drastically important event occurs in the
Eastern Empire at this time which has a profound effect on History, even to this day. Around
610, a 40 year old shepherd in the Arabian Pennisula claimed to have a vision from God telling
him that he was the prophet and that he would restore true religion to the world. The name of the
this man was Mohammed. The religion which he taught was known as “Islam” – or
“submission.”
There are many different ways one could look the history of Islam, but as this is a study
of the history of the Church, we are going to look at Islam from the perspective of the Church –
how it impacted the Church. And as such, I will make claim here that you will not likely hear in
many other places – a claim that is highly politically incorrect. Mohammed is the greatest
heretic ever, and Islam is the largest and most popular heresy the Christian Church has ever
produced.
First, let’s set the stage in Arabia. Arabia at this time was part of the Eastern Empire, but
this is before the discovery of oil – so it’s basically a barren, desert region. You have the
Bedouin, you have nomads wandering around. There’s stuff there, but not a lot – it’s one of the
backwaters of the Empire. And it’s Christian – Christianity is the official religion, and there are
quite a few Christians there. And there are quite a few Jews as well. But once you get out of the
cities and into the deserts, the majority of the people are polytheistic pagans whose highest deity
was the moon goddess.
And into this scene appears Mohammed. And he makes some interesting claims. First,
he openly attacks any and all polytheism – Mohammed claims that there is only one god (Allah –
which is just the Arabic word for God). And furthermore, he claims that this one god is the God
of Abraham, and the God of Ishamael – Abraham’s first son by Hagar the serving girl. And
Mohammed claims that the Old Testament is the word of this god – but in the past thousand
years, the Jews and the Christians have abandoned right worship of the one god. Mohammed
claims that he has been sent to restore the right worship of god through his teachings.
However, Mohammed is very definitely a heretic. Why? Mohammed admits that Jesus
is the Messiah. Mohammed says that you are supposed to believe in the “Gospels” of Jesus (it is
part of the third pillar of Islam – where you are to believe in the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospels,
and Qur’an). However, the Gospels as we have them have been corrupted – because Jesus
wasn’t the Son of God – He was a prophet and a messenger, even the Messiah, born of the
Virgin Mary, the promised prophet from the Old Testament – but according to Mohammed,
Jesus is not God.
We’ve seen this before – it’s basically another shade of Arianism – the heresy that the
Nicene fought to destroy. And there are differences (Islam says that Jesus is just a man, Arius
said Jesus was more than just a man – sort of like a god) – Islam denies Christ’s Divinity. They
also deny the Crucifixion. The Quran (or Koran) states that while Jesus was put on the Cross –
God replaced Jesus with another person, because God wouldn’t let his messiah suffer like that.
Mohammed taught that Jesus simply continued to live out his life preaching charity and
obedience to god until he was taken bodily into heaven.
Mohammed definitely pulls a lot from the teaching of Jesus. Mohammed teaches that we
are to follow God’s will – he teaches that we are to be charitable (and not brag about it) –
Mohammed even teaches the resurrection of the dead on the last day - but when it comes to who
Jesus is and how we are saved – Mohammed drops the ball completely. For this reason, I think
it’s right to view Islam as a heresy springing out from the Christian Church – and a tragic one at
that. You could say that a Muslim (just like a Jew) wants to believe in the True God – but
because they reject Jesus, because they deny that Jesus is God – they worship some false God of
their own devising.
Islam begins to spread rather rapidly in the areas of the middle east. By the time
Mohammed dies in 632, most of the Arabian peninsula has been converted to Islam. Islam
continues to spread as the Muslim leaders conquer other territories, many of which were
predominately Christian. They take over Egypt and Syria and Persia by around 650. They even
take over all of Spain and North Africa. Each of these areas was predominately Christian.
And the Muslim leaders do something brilliant. While they kill and slaughter pagans,
they let Jews and Christians live. Jews and Christians are allowed to gather to worship even.
However, they aren’t allowed to proselytize – they can’t try and convert anyone. They also
aren’t allowed to marry legally – so unless you convert you aren’t having any kids and the like.
There were also some social benefits that you lost if you were Christian, but could gain if you
converted. And this tactic virtually wipes out Christianity in a few generations in the Muslim
lands. The Christians were lulled into a false sense of security – but in going along with Muslim
rule they sacrificed the future of the Church. While in some places pockets of Christianity
persist and struggle (the Coptic Church in Egypt, some Churches in the areas of Syria and
modern day Iraq) – by in large, the faith is snuffed out, and these places, once the heart of
Christianity, are lost to the Church.
D – The Iconoclast Controversy – There is one final big brouhaha that the East has before the
year 1000. This is what is called the Iconoclast Controversy. Iconoclast means “imagebreaker”, and iconoclasts were called as such because they literally destroyed Christian art,
especially the pictures, or “icons” of Christ because they thought they were blasphemous.
There is a somewhat long history involving Christian images. I’m sure we’ve all heard of
the early Christians using the fish as a symbol identifying themselves as ones caught by the
Fisher of Men. By around 200 or so there is actually a development of Christian Art – where
instead of just producing symbols, people produce images of Jesus, events of Christ’s life, and
famous saints. However, not everyone is comfortable with this off the bat. The Ten
Commandments include the instruction not to make any graven images – idols are out of the
question. Some wondered if by making pictures of Jesus and the saints Christians were giving
into the idolatrous ways of the pagan world.
Nevertheless, the production of Icons becomes standard, accepted practice. By the year
500 they are all over the place in the East, and are also treated with great respect. If your church
was named after a specific saint, you would have an icon of this saint, and you would treat it
with great respect. If you came across an icon of Christ, you would reverence it (just like I do
with the Altar in the front of the Church). Many people would have icons in their own homes
and they would gather around the icon for family devotions. But all the while there is this
undercurrent among some Christians as to whether or not this is coming too close to idolatry.
This tension is blown into the open with the advent of Islam. Remember, Islam claims
that both Judaism and Christianity corrupt the proper teachings of God. One of the aspects they
claimed has been corrupted is on the creation of images. Islamic art is all geometric and nonrepresentational. Classic Islamic art doesn’t even let you make pictures of animals or trees –
because they won’t make any graven images. This presence emboldens those who are opposed
to icons within the Christian Church to speak out openly against icons and their usage.
In 717 Constantinople was under siege by Muslim invaders. The military governor of
western Asia Minor assumes the throne and defense of Constantinople, becoming the Emperor
Leo III. Under Leo III’s leadership Constantinople repels the invaders and begins to expand the
Empire’s influence. Leo, as all the Emperors did, assumed that he was the full and complete
head of the Church, that God had established him to guide and rule everything. As part of this,
in 726 he began to openly attack Icons.
Leo was of the opinion that creating an image of Jesus was sacrilegious. Not only was it
idolatrous and against the 10 Commandments, but it was also impossible. Leo and the other
iconoclasts made the following argument – If Jesus is both True God and True Man, how can
you make a representation of Him. How does one capture God in paint? For the iconoclasts,
icons weren’t just idols, they were bad theology.
There is much open opposition to what Leo does. Icons are very popular – what the
normal people had in their homes. To think of it this way, imagine what reaction would be if the
US government declared that we couldn’t keep a cross on our wall. That was by in large the
public reaction. Also, most of the religious leaders and bishops supported the use of icons.
These bishops had a strong theological reason for this – Jesus is true Man, and you can draw a
picture of a Man. They claimed that to say that you can’t draw a picture of Jesus is tantamount
to saying that He wasn’t really a Man. The Patriarch of Constantinople at the time said, “since
the only Son. . . deigned to become Man, we make the image of His human form and of His
human aspect according to the flesh.” However, Emperor Leo claims that he rules both the
Church and the State, so he starts cracking down on the bishops who support Icons.
The major opponent of the Iconoclasts is John of Damascus. I actually got to translate
some of his writings on Revelation for one of my professors at the Seminary. John is a very nice
theologian, and he is in the forefront of the Church’s struggles against Islam as Damascus is a
conquered city. In addition to the standard image argument, John also points out that we are not
bound to the old Jewish laws – that the coming of Christ has changed the world. He also points
out that we shouldn’t just think of stuff (and things that can be pictured) as evil – because Jesus
took on flesh and has made it holy in Himself.
The problem really boils over after Leo’s death in 740. His son Constantine V came to
the throne, and he hated icons. He starts flogging and beating bishops who support icons. He
sends soldiers to dash images to pieces. In 754 Constantine calls a “council” – but he only
invites iconoclasts and doesn’t invite the Pope or any Patriarchs, so it’s not much of a council.
This council officially condemns all icons and orders their destruction.
To add to the confusion, the Pope in Rome strongly supports the use of icons. So there
starts to be political wrangling, especially with the rise of the Frankish Empire. In the 8th
Century, you have the creation of a new, strong Empire in the West that Rome starts relating
more and more to. The Franks end up taking over Venice, which was still part of
Constantinople’s territory. Because the Pope is threatened by invading Lombards, he appeals to
the Frankish King Pepin the Short in 754 rather than the East to defend Rome. And Pepin does,
and his kingdom grows and grows – eventually gaining much power under the rule of his
Grandson – Charlemagne. Because of the timing of the iconoclast controversy Rome is finally
politically split from the Eastern Empire.
But Icons are not done away with even in the East. Constantine V ends up dying, and his
son Leo IV takes the throne. Leo IV marries a gal by the name of Irene, who is an adamant
supporter of Icons. Leo was a good leader, but he dies in 780. His son, Constantine VI, was
only 10, so Irene takes over as regent, and she works to restore Icons. She tries to call a council
in 786, but iconoclast soldiers break in a chase everyone off. In 787 the final Ecumenical
Council, Nicea II is called, and Icons are approved as acceptable. The distinction that is made is
that Images can be made and should be respected, but not worshipped or adored. All 5
Patriarchs, including the Pope (through his official representatives) agree with this. It is the last
time the 5 Patriarchs ever come together and agree on a doctrinal dispute in an official way, even
to this very day.
For the next 50 years there still are some waves of Iconoclastism which spike up again,
depending on who the Emperor is, but by 850 Icons are the accepted rule in the East. In the
West they always were accepted. King Charlemagne thought Christian images and art were
important not for their use in worship or personal devotion, but as a way of teaching people who
couldn’t read the truths of the Christian faith. This becomes the predominate attitude in the
West, which is why we have the long history and tradition of religious art (including stained
glass windows) even to this day. In the East, the art tends to stick more to simple images and
icons, which indeed are very beautiful.
This is the last great debate that just focuses on the Eastern Orthodox Church. As you
can tell, the issues that start coming up begin to seem more foreign to our minds. This is because
we come from the history of the Western Church, and the two traditions of East and West are
slowly separating for a multitude of cultural and political reasons. Now we need to look and see
what has happened in the West over this time.