The Uncertainty of Eastern Orthodoxy

Some American Protestants are tempted by Eastern Orthodoxy because they believe it will give them greater epistemological certainty. They seek the firm foundation of 7 inspired ecumenical councils, instead of their own “private judgement” as individuals, etc. They see Protestantism as a messy land where every man does what is right in his own eyes, and Eastern Orthodoxy as a land with clearly defined authority and knowledge. But nothing could be further from the truth. In reality Eastern Orthodoxy is incredibly fuzzy and ambiguous, and appealing to 7 ecumenical councils does not offer any refuge from the epistemological worries these people have. The unity and clarity of the Eastern Orthodox Church is illusory. Consider the following 6 points:

(1) There is no obvious or even formally agreed definition for what makes an “ecumenical” council:
-Does everyone present have to vote unanimously? 
-Do all the bishops or elders have to be present?
-Does it require the approval of the Bishop of Rome?
-If the Roman Catholics become genuine heretics and schism away from the true church, can the true church still hold ecumenical councils without them? 
-If the Oriental Orthodox become accidental heretics due to misunderstandings and thereby schism way from the true church, can you still hold ecumenical councils without them?

(2) Consequently, people disagree over how many “ecumenical councils” there are:
Some Christians argue there are only 2 ecumenical councils (Church of the East/Assyrian Church).
Some Christians argue there are only 3 ecumenical councils (Oriental Orthodox).
Some Christians argue there are only 4 ecumenical councils (some Protestants, because the so-called 7th was a bastard council, and the 5th and 6th were odd and merely consisted of canons anyway which aren’t considered authoritative by many).
Some Christians argue there are only 6 ecumenical councils.
Some Christians argue there are only 7 ecumenical councils. 
Some Christians argue there are only 8 ecumenical councils (some EO treat Constantinople IV as ecumenical).
Some Christians argue there are only 9 ecumenical councils (some EO treat Constantinople V as ecumenical).   
Some Christians argue there are only 10 ecumenical councils (some EO treat the Council of Jassy in 1642 as ecumenical).  
Some Christians argue there are only 11 ecumenical councils (some EO treat the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 as ecumenical).
Some Christians argue there are only 12 ecumenical councils (some EO treat Constantinople VI in 1872–arguably the most important council for modern EO ecclesiology–as ecumenical).
Some Christians argue there are only 19 ecumenical councils (Old Catholics who deny Papal Infallibility and deny the legitimacy of Vatican I and Vatican II).  
Some Christians argue there are only 20 ecumenical councils (Traditionalist Catholics who deny Vatican II).
Some Christians argue there are 21 ecumenical councils (standard Roman Catholics).

(3) How can you defend the choice of Eastern Orthodoxy specifically?
Closely following from the above, if somebody is considering joining the Eastern Orthodox Church, why not the Oriental Orthodox Church instead which is a distinct and separate communion? Or why not the Assyrian Church? Or why not the Russian Old Believers, who claim to be the one and only *real* Eastern Orthodox Church? I have rarely met somebody tempted by EO who could give me good reasons for their choice of “mainstream EO” over against its numerous competitors when choosing their favorite One, True, Apostolic Church™. Theoretically the stakes ought to be high for this decision, because There Can Be Only One …unless we assume Protestant principles, of course. And even if converts do claim to have a reason for mainstream EO, that’s just another demonstration of them unavoidably exercising their personal judgement.

(4) There are major disagreements within Christianity, and even within EO specifically, over what sort of “authority” an ecumenical council ought to carry:
(A) Some Christians argue ecumenical councils carry no authority, that they are worthless or even harmful (some Anabaptists and neo-Anabaptists)
(B) Some Christians argue ecumenical councils carry human limited authority, imparting a hermeneutical grid to us which helps ground us in a community exegesis of scripture as opposed to solitary exegesis, analogous to a “scientific consensus” in a field like physics, which you’d be foolish and reckless to depart from casually.
(C) Some Christians argue ecumenical councils carry fuzzy infallible(?) authority which only applies to “higher” doctrinal matters like Christology and Trinitarianism (e.g. some EO priests will say, “The core point of the 7th council was Christology, so technically that’s all you need to believe in order to convert; we can talk about icons later”)
(D) Some Christians argue ecumenical councils carry doctrinally infallible authority which only applies to the creedal content and not the canons
(E) Some Christians argue ecumenical councils carry totally infallible authority, including even the canons (at least, I assume there must be such people; I’ve never met one myself)

(5) Ecumenical Councils barely settle anything doctrinally or ethically
If you believe that only 7 ecumenical councils infallibly mark the bounds of orthodoxy and treat it as THE criteria that gives you the certainty you need to properly identify true Christianity, then that solves almost nothing. Almost everything is still up for grabs:
(i) soteriology is undefined… maybe we Calvinists are right
(ii) eschatology is undefined… maybe universalism is true!
(iii) the doctrine of the eucharist is undefined… maybe RC-style transubstantiation is true, as explicitly taught in the EO council of 1672, or maybe it’s false. Who can say?
(iv) homosexual or transgender behavior is not condemned in any ecumenical council. E.g., the Finnish Orthodox Church has been re-considering these questions and pushing for more liberal policies.
(v) even the canon of scripture (!) is undefined… maybe the apocrypha is inspired! Or maybe the Russian Orthodox are right to say it isn’t inspired! Who can say? More on this below.

(6) Eastern Orthodox disagree over the canon of scripture
Since EO-sympathetic folks often argue that “church authority defines the biblical canon” or some rubbish like that, it’s worth emphasizing that technically the canon is not even authoritatively defined within EO! There is disagreement between EO churches over whether the following books/chapters should be included in the canon:
4 Maccabees
Prayer of Manasseh
4 Esdras

(And don’t even get me started on the Oriental Orthodox. They have huge disagreements over the OT canon, and even the NT canon… they actually add extra books to the NT! However, since we’re talking about EO I suppose we can set aside the Oriental Orthodox for now.)

More importantly, even when EO can agree on a list of canonical books, there are a range of opinions over whether the apocrypha/deuterocanon should be considered inspired on par with ‘normal’ scripture. Some EO are essentially Protestant regarding the deterocanon, treating them as merely pious and useful books (e.g. this Russian Orthodox catechism), whereas other EO take a higher view of the deterocanon more akin to Roman Catholicism (e.g., the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672).

*********************

Etc., etc., etc. So much of the attraction to Eastern Orthodoxy is just optical illusions and wishful thinking. Unfortunately, wishful thinking is an extremely powerful thing, and difficult to overcome. EO is so foreign to the typical American Christian that some folks are tempted to think they’ll find something remarkable or different there. But at the end of the day, EO is just the same messiness and sin you see everywhere else in life… or worse actually, because the EO seriously obscure the gospel and tolerate more superstition and sin (2nd commandment). Instead of looking to Eastern Orthodoxy and 7 ecumenical councils to assuage their epistemological worries, these insecure people need to embrace their creaturely finitude and look to Christ directly. “Private judgement” is inevitable, but we should exercise it by orienting ourselves towards the sure foundation of Christ and Scripture, not the sandy foundation of the traditions of men.