Jesus Christ, Founder

How does Orthodox Christianity perceive the history of Christianity? In the broadest brush strokes imaginable, we will try to answer that question. For Orthodoxy, there is no figure equivalent to Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or Roger Williams. There is only one founder and that is Jesus Christ. This is not said in a pious or dogmatic sense alone, but in a matter-of-fact historical sense as well. We cannot think of any other person who could stand as founder of the Orthodox Church other than Christ Himself. We see ourselves as Christ's Church and the Church of His Apostles and their successors. This is one of the terms 'Apostolic' in the Creed. Thus, for example, the Orthodox bishops of Corinth and Thessalonike today see themselves as direct historical, spiritual and canonical descendants of St. Paul and those who were left by him to be pastors of the churches in their communities.

Though there were many heresies and schisms in the history of the Early Church, contemporary Orthodoxy senses itself to be in direct continuity with the dominant tradition, which was identified with the five ancient Patriarchates of the Early Church. Those in communion with these five ancient Patriarchates were Orthodox and Catholic. These were the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Rome, because it was the original capital city of the Empire, was the first in rank. Later, when Constantinople became the capital of the Christianized Roman Empire, know as Byzantium, it was ranked co-equal with Rome. Yet, this ranking in the East was only perceived as a ranking of honor and never as a ranking of administrative authority. The integrity of the local Church together with the local bishop was essential in the area of administration and church life. The administrative and sacramental autonomy of the local church jurisdiction-with the bishop as its head-is essential to understanding subsequent Church history. It means that the Orthodox have no place in their thinking for a supreme ruler of the Church.

Such a relatively decentralized understanding of church government has a corollary-the conciliar approach to church life. Arising out of a complex of doctrinal affirmations-including anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology and sacramental theology-the Orthodox are primarily corporate-minded and relationally oriented rather than authoritarian and legalistic. Early in the Church's history-as described in the Book of Acts-the Church sought solutions to its problems not by appeal to the authority of a single bishop but through councils, which were perceived to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Local and regional councils were held and within the first eight centuries of the Church's existence seven Ecumenical Councils were held. These Councils are normative for the Orthodox, both doctrinally and administratively. Thus, for example, the Fourth Ecumenical Council held in 451 in Chalcedon formulated the Orthodox doctrine of the Person of Christ as both fully human and fully divine. No one henceforth could deny that doctrine and remain an Orthodox Christian. Among the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils was also the formulation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, recited henceforth in the worship of the Orthodox Church.

Of course, the Church was not untouched by the political and social forces of the times in which it lived. Its incarnational foundation made that inevitable. However, these forces also had deleterious effects. Beginning in the sixth century certain doctrinal and non-theological tensions began to develop between the see of Rome in the Western part of the Church and the other four Patriarchates in the East. Among the non-theological factors were language differences, the division of the Empire into Eastern and Western portions, barbarian invasions, the rise of rival political entities, and perhaps most significant of all, a division of outlook, perspectives, and philosophy between East and West. Though it is a simplification to put it in these terms, it fairly represents the truth. Like early Christianity, the East remained Greek in expression, popular in symbol, in language, worship, theoretical in outlook, mystical in practice. The West emphasized other aspects of the Early Church-a universal language, formal transcendence in worship, practical outlook and a legally oriented spirit in theology and ethics.

These led to various kinds of conflicts in jurisdictional, liturgical and doctrinal matters. Doctrinally these ranged from the rejection by the East of the western addition of the FILIOQUE in the Creed, to the rejection by the East of papal claims over the whole Church. In the late ninth century a schism took place that was only temporarily healed a half century later. Another break took place in 1O54, a date often referred to as the date of the 'Great Schism' between Eastern and Western Christianity. The split became irreparable with the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 12O4 during the infamous Fourth Crusade. Since then Eastern and Western Christianity have gone their separate ways.

The subsequent history of the Western Church, often referred to as "The Dark Ages," is familiar to most. The rise of papal authority, the practice of indulgences and the abuses of the higher clergy led to great changes within the church. The rise of European nationalism, the Reformation, the splintering of Protestantism in the face of conformist polities, the movement toward religious freedom, the consequent rise of sectarianism and the New World experiment in religious toleration were among the changes that took place during this tumultous period in history.

The history of the Church in the East followed another path. From the eighth century on, there was a two-fold movement in Eastern Christianity: expansion into the Slavic lands and subjugation to the rising tide of Islam. In the first instance, Orthodox Christianity became established in Eastern Europe and most notably in Russia. In the other, the rapid expansion of Islam through the force of the sword led finally to the subjugation of all of the Christian areas of the East, including all of the four Patriarchates. With the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, a four hundred-year period of subjugation began, in which the chief value was survival. Life under the Turks was one in which certain rights were legally acknowledged but often ignored in practice. It was a period of abuse, insult, exploitation, and often, martyrdom. A whole new class of saints arose in that period, known as the neo-martyrs. This legacy has remained with the Orthodox even after the winning of their freedom from the Islamic yoke, which began little by little in Eastern Europe with the Greek Revolution in 1821. In the meantime, another kind of subjugation came into being in Russia. The Church became totally subject to a totalitarian autocracy to the point that the Patriarchate of Moscow was abolished under Peter the Great. Except for a short period during the popular revolution of 1917 when a Sobor (Council) of the Russian Church was held, a similar subjugation of the Church in the U.S.S.R. continues under the communists. The Church, however, continued its work as best it could under these adverse conditions.

The last chapters of the Orthodox Church's history can be summarized in two words: diaspora and mission. Perhaps the most striking phenomenon of Orthodoxy today has been the rise of the diaspora. By this term we mean the emigration of significant numbers of Orthodox Christians from traditionally Orthodox lands such as Greece, Russia, Syria, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc. to lands where the Orthodox were virtually unknown. A stream of Orthodox Christians moved first to the 'land of opportunity,' the United States. The Christians eventually also moved to other areas including, Europe (primarily England, France and Germany), South America, Canada, and more recently Australia, New Zealand, and certain countries in Africa. As each ethnic group of Orthodox Christians established itself, its first thought was to establish a church around which the traditions of the people would be lived. A priest from the old country was invited to serve the local parish and as the life of these people became more settled and complex. The mother Churches sent bishops, dioceses and archdioceses were established, and the churches became more and more acclimated to the adopted homelands. Thus, Orthodoxy ceased to be Eastern, geographically, at least.

Eastern Orthodoxy has a long history of missions. During the Ottoman Turkish domination of the Church in the Balkans and the near East, Russian missions reached Japan and Alaska. We have recently seen a resurgence of interest in missions. Presently, Orthodox missions take place in Uganda, Kenya, Korea, China, and Indonesia etc. In short, then, Orthodox Christianity identifies with the whole of this history, and specifically with the Early Church. Their theology and their life are part of our own being and existence. We recognize that in history there is much that is passing, contingent upon and conditioned by cultural factors. Yet this does not outweigh our sense of tradition and continuity with the ONE UNDIVIDED CHURCH of the first eight centuries of the Christian era.