A Brief History of Upheavals – The Great Schism

Our next upheaval officially took place in 1054 AD and is formally known as The Great Schism. But again, it's important to realize that the event that we associate with The Great Schism (the mutual excommunication of the Patriarch of Alexandria by the Pope and of the Pope by the Patriarch of Alexandria) was not spontaneous but was the climactic event after centuries of tension and division. A little backstory will be helpful.

In my last post, I introduced a Roman Emperor named Constantine who is a massively important figure in Church history. You'll remember that it was Constantine who, upon his conversion to Christianity, both legalized Christianity across the Empire (thus, ending the persecution of Christians) and paved the way for Christianity to eventually become the official religion of Rome. But that was not the extent of Constantine's legacy. 

In 330 AD, Constantine, for a variety of reasons, moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome itself to Byzantium in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). He would immediately rename the city Constantinople (now Istanbul), and it become the center of would eventually be known as the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire. (When I spoke last week of the fall of the Roman Empire, I was referring to the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Empire, the Byzantines would outlast the Western by nearly 1000 years, falling to the Ottomans in 1453.) So, with the relocation of the capital, the known world was effectively divided, politically and religiously, into two centers of power, West and East, Rome and Constantinople. 

Now, it's important to recognize that, the West was not the only Christianized area in the Empire at this time. In fact, despite what we Westerners tend to believe, Christianity came from the East. If we read the book of Acts, we'll immediately recognize that the earliest churches were not planted in Greece or Italy (the West) but in Asia Minor. In other words, there were centuries-old Eastern, churches, with established leadership structures, cultural expressions, and liturgical practices in Asia Minor when Constantinople was established, and these churches immediately moved from the fringes to the center of power, their own leadership rivaling that of the Pope in Rome.

And this, some 700 years before the event itself, is the beginning of The Great Schism. 

You see, while the Western Roman political Empire would collapse in 468, the Western Church (soon to be known as "Roman Catholic") would continue to exert significant influence over the world, particularly over the developing West, which would, over time, become Europe. Meanwhile, the Byzantine Church and its leadership, would hold sway over the East. Now, at this time, they still considered themselves to be one Church, with the leadership of each heavily invested and involved in the other. (In fact, for several centuries, the Emperor of Constantinople had at least "rubber stamp" approval over the appointment of leadership in the Western Church, including over the Pope himself.)

Now, here's where things got tricky: two distinct leadership structures trying to exist as one universal Church despite geographic separation, cultural differences, theological differences, and, significantly, different languages (the Western Church having transitioned to Latin while the Eastern Church remained Greek speaking). Needless to say, complications arose. Imagine trying to have diplomatic conversations about complex theological, ecclesiological, or liturgical disagreements while contending with a language barrier. All these factors would eventually contribute to The Great Schism of 1054, but at the heart of all the issues was a fundamental conflict over the leadership structure of the Church. In the West, the Pope was (and is) considered the singular and ultimate authority in the Church. However, the East embraced a plurality of leadership, with regional Patriarchs (Bishops) leading the Church in collaboration with one another. In this structure, the Patriarch of Constantinople was certainly significant as the leader of the Church in the Eastern capital but so too was the Pope (the Patriarch of Rome, as he was known in the Eastern Church) as the leader of the Western Church. You can see the problem. The Pope and the West increasingly attempted to make unilateral decisions for the whole universal Church (even going so far as to appoint their own Emperors to rival the Emperor of Constantinople (e.g. Charlemagne, Otto, etc.), while the Church in the East sought to maintain collaborative processes for leadership and decision-making.

The most significant moment in this power struggle is referred to as "The Filioque Controversy," wherein the Western Church modified the Nicaean Creed (a creed written at the Council of Nicaea in 325, a collaborative meeting of Bishops from across the Church presided over by Constantine himself) to include the word “filoque," ("and from the Son"), to describe the sending of the Holy Spirit. To be certain, there are significant theological implications in this small change, implications that are still hotly debated between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church to this day. However, the core of the issue was both theological, it was structural. The question raised by this debate was one that had been brewing for centuries: did the Pope have the authority to change the wording of one of the most important doctrines in Church history without consulting with the leadership structure of the global Church. Rome said yes: the Pope is the highest and final authority. Constantinople said no: the Pope is a significant leader but is still only one among many. When this issue was combined with other contentious matters (leavened vs. unleavened bread in communion, the use of icons in worship, Mary's title and character as "The Mother of God," and more), the conflict centuries in the making finally boiled over.  In a moment of history-shaping pettiness, the Pope officially excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople (by laying the "Bowl of Excommunication" on the steps of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople while the Patriarch was holding Mass inside), and the Patriarch immediately returned the favor, excommunicating the Pope. And thus, in 1054, the holy Catholic (universal) Church officially split in two, the Western branch now known as Catholic and the Eastern as Orthodox.

At first glance, it's hard to see how The Great Schism could be anything but a historic disaster. And, to be clear, it was (and still is) a tragic failure of unity. Jesus called the global Church to unity and went so far as to say that our unity will be the primary means through with the world will know the love of God. With this in mind, The Great Schism, the worst Church split in history (one that, though much improved, is still not fully healed) is unmitigated disaster. However, history has shown time and time again that God is willing and able to use both dark and light threads in the weaving of redemption's tapestry. Or as a professor of mine like to say, “God has two hands, a right hand and a left hand.” When we choose to obey God's will, we walk the path of blessing, the right-hand path. All too often, though, we choose disobedience and rebellion and end up on the other path. But God's plan is not frustrated by our disobedience. His left hand is just as powerful as his right, and though that path leads through pain and brokenness that he doesn't want for us, he can, with his mighty left hand, bring it back to his will, back to redemption.

The same is true here. The disunity in the global Church during The Great Schism was an unparalleled tragedy and was not in alignment with God's desire for his Church; however, it did not foil his redemptive plan. In fact, there is a (dare I say) necessary element of disunity present in each of the upheavals as the something new must break from the old in order to facilitate transformation. If there is not a breaking up of the old and an emergence of something new, the whole movement will die. In this case, God, in his grace and sovereignty, worked through the Schism to create a fuller version of the body of Christ. Two unique, culturally contextualized communities freed from attempts to conform to one universal expression, now able to better take on the flavor of their communities and thus serve them better (this notion of cultural contextualization will play a significant role in the next upheaval as well). The Roman Catholic Church retained attributes of the West enabling it to spread rapidly across Europe, and the Orthodox Church, as it would come to be known (also called Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, though this is a bit of a misnomer), Byzantine, and more. remained uniquely Eastern, allowing it to flourish in regions that were otherwise hostile to Christianity, particularly with the rise of Islam. And when they paired their culturally contextualized expressions of Church with competitive missionary endeavors, as each sought to win converts from the other. (Again, this is not healthy or the way God intended it, but to quote the Apostle Paul, "It is true that some preach Christ out envy and rivalry...but what does it matter? Whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached, and because of this I rejoice.” Philippians 1:15, 18) the result was the spread of the Gospel and the growth of the Church.