BEFORE EAST AND WEST DIVIDED

HOW DID THERE COME TO BE AN EASTERN CHURCH AND A WESTERN CHURCH?

Today we hear names such as:

Roman Catholic.

Greek Orthodox.

Russian Orthodox.

Eastern Orthodox.

It is easy to assume Christianity had always been divided that way.

It wasn't.

There was no Roman Catholic denomination competing with an Eastern Orthodox denomination in the book of Acts.

There was simply the church, spreading from Jerusalem into the wider world.

So before we ask why East and West divided, we need to understand something more basic:

HOW DID THERE COME TO BE AN EAST AND A WEST?

1. THE GOSPEL CROSSED MANY CULTURES

Jesus told His apostles:

“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

— Acts 1:8

And that is what began happening.

The gospel moved from Jerusalem into the larger Roman world and beyond it.

Churches appeared in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, and many other places.

These Christians did not all speak the same language.

They did not all have the same cultural background.

They did not all live under identical political circumstances.

But they confessed the same Christ.

Paul wrote:

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

— Ephesians 4:4–5

The church was geographically scattered.

But Christians were called to unity in Christ.

That unity did not require every congregation to speak the same language or follow every local custom in exactly the same way.

As the church spread, however, differences in language, geography, and political circumstances would become increasingly important.

2. THE ROMAN EMPIRE ITSELF HAD AN EAST AND A WEST

As Christianity spread, geography mattered.

The western part of the empire increasingly used Latin in government, public life, and Christian writing.

In the East, Greek remained widely used, along with other regional languages.

Rome was a major center in the West.

In the East were great cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Later, Constantinople would become especially important.

These were not originally the headquarters of competing denominations.

They were important cities with Christian communities that shared the same early history.

But distance mattered.

Language mattered.

Culture mattered.

Politics mattered.

And over centuries, those differences would affect how Christians communicated, organized their churches, and resolved disagreements.

3. CONSTANTINE ESTABLISHED A NEW IMPERIAL CAPITAL

We met Constantine in our earlier studies.

In the fourth century, he established a new imperial capital at the site of the old city of Byzantium.

The city was dedicated in A.D. 330.

It became known as:

CONSTANTINOPLE.

It was also called:

NEW ROME.

That name is important.

Old Rome remained an ancient and influential city, but it was no longer the only great imperial center around which church influence could develop.

The emperor now had a major capital in the East.

And the bishop of that city would become increasingly important.

4. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE?

If an important city's bishop tended to become important, what would happen to the bishop of the emperor's new capital?

We do not have to guess.

At the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, Canon 3 assigned the bishop of Constantinople the place of honor immediately after the bishop of Rome.

The canon gave its reason:

Constantinople was New Rome.

Notice what the canon says—and what it does not say.

It gives Constantinople a place of honor because of the city's imperial standing.

It does not, by that statement alone, define every kind of authority the bishop of Constantinople possessed over other bishops.

A place of honor and the authority to govern other churches are not necessarily the same thing.

Nevertheless, the canon shows that the political importance of a city could affect the standing assigned to its bishop.

That would become a major issue in the relationship between Rome and Constantinople.

5. THAT CREATED TENSION WITH OTHER GREAT CHURCHES

Constantinople was a relatively new imperial capital.

But Alexandria was ancient.

Antioch was ancient.

Jerusalem was where the church began.

Rome possessed enormous historical prestige and was associated with Peter and Paul.

Now Constantinople was being given a higher place of honor because it was New Rome, the imperial capital.

That affected the relationships among the great episcopal centers.

But we should not imagine that every church immediately accepted the same understanding of Constantinople's new position.

The standing and responsibilities of major bishops remained matters of discussion and disagreement.

Compare this developing organization with the account in Acts:

“And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”

— Acts 14:23

Acts describes elders being appointed in local churches.

The later system of major episcopal centers and their relationships developed over time.

That does not, by itself, settle whether later Christians were authorized to organize their churches in that way.

It does establish an important historical distinction:

The organization described in Acts and the organization documented in later councils are not identical.

6. THEN CAME CHALCEDON

In A.D. 451, the Council of Chalcedon addressed Constantinople's position again.

Canon 28 argued that old Rome had received privileges because it was the imperial city.

It then reasoned that Constantinople, as New Rome, should receive comparable privileges because it too possessed an emperor and senate.

The canon assigned Constantinople a position immediately after old Rome and addressed its ecclesiastical responsibilities in specified regions.

This was more than a statement about which bishop should be greeted first at a gathering.

It concerned the organization of church authority.

Leo I, bishop of Rome, rejected Canon 28, as did the Roman representatives at the council.

Leo I, bishop of Rome, rejected it.

Leo emphasized the standing of the Roman see through its association with Peter and objected to the proposed arrangement.

Now we can see a disagreement taking shape.

The bishops supporting Canon 28 appealed to the political standing of the imperial cities.

Leo appealed to the authority and established standing of apostolic sees, especially Rome's connection with Peter.

These were different explanations of why a bishop or episcopal center should possess particular privileges.

The disagreement did not immediately produce the later division between East and West.

But it shows that Christians were already debating the grounds and limits of ecclesiastical authority.

7. FIVE GREAT CENTERS EVENTUALLY STOOD OUT

Over time, five great episcopal centers came to possess special importance:

ROME

CONSTANTINOPLE

ALEXANDRIA

ANTIOCH

JERUSALEM

The arrangement involving these five patriarchal sees later became commonly known as the Pentarchy.

But we need to be careful.

These five centers did not all acquire the same standing at the same time.

Their responsibilities and relationships developed over centuries.

Nor did every Christian community belong neatly within that five-center arrangement. Important churches also existed beyond the empire and outside the structures recognized by its councils.

We should not read the later system backward into the New Testament.

The apostles did not describe five patriarchates when they appointed elders in the churches.

The Pentarchy was a later historical arrangement.

Its supporters understood it as a way of organizing the leadership of the church.

Our task is to distinguish that historical development from the arrangements expressly described in the apostolic writings.

8. ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE DID NOT UNDERSTAND AUTHORITY IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY

This becomes crucial.

Rome increasingly emphasized its connection with Peter.

As we saw in our previous section, Roman bishops argued that Peter's particular commission continued in the Roman see.

The eastern churches also recognized Rome's ancient importance and its association with Peter and Paul.

But eastern church organization gave substantial importance to several great patriarchal centers and to decisions made through synods and councils.

Over time, different understandings of Roman primacy became increasingly important.

In the West, the Roman bishop's claims to authority over the wider church became more explicit.

In the East, bishops and patriarchs generally understood church authority in a more conciliar framework, while still recognizing forms of precedence and primacy.

We should not exaggerate this distinction.

Western Christianity also had councils.

Eastern Christianity also had influential patriarchs and disputes over authority.

Nor did all eastern or western Christians agree among themselves.

But a major question was emerging:

Did the bishop of Rome possess a primacy of honor, a wider authority to govern other churches, or both?

That question would become central to the later division.

9. LANGUAGE MADE COMMUNICATION MORE DIFFICULT

This may seem like a small matter.

It wasn't.

Western Christianity increasingly operated in:

LATIN.

Eastern Christianity largely operated in:

GREEK.

Other languages were also important in Christian communities throughout the East.

Theologians could use different words to discuss the same subject.

Documents had to be translated.

A term in one language did not always carry exactly the same associations in another.

Over time, many western church leaders had limited knowledge of Greek.

Many eastern church leaders had limited knowledge of Latin.

Imagine Christians discussing complicated theological questions while becoming less able to read one another's writings in the original language.

Misunderstandings became easier.

Language differences did not cause every disagreement between East and West.

But they could make existing disagreements harder to resolve.

10. POLITICS ALSO PULLED THEM APART

In A.D. 476, the western imperial office came to an end.

The eastern Roman Empire continued.

Its emperor ruled from Constantinople for centuries afterward.

Western Europe developed under changing kingdoms and political arrangements.

In that environment, the bishop of Rome increasingly assumed responsibilities in public affairs and developed relationships with western rulers.

In the East, the emperor remained an important figure in the political life of Constantinople and in the circumstances surrounding church councils and disputes.

That affected the development of church authority.

The bishop of Rome operated in one political environment.

The patriarch of Constantinople operated in another.

These differences did not automatically require the churches to divide.

But they influenced the way each side understood its responsibilities and its relationship with the other.

11. THIS IS WHY A.D. 1054 DID NOT COME OUT OF NOWHERE

People often say:

“The church split in 1054.”

That date is important.

But it can also be misleading.

East and West did not wake up one morning in A.D. 1054 and suddenly decide to become two churches.

Centuries of differences and disputes had already accumulated:

Language.

Culture.

Politics.

Church organization.

Claims about authority.

Theological disagreements.

Different customs of worship.

There had also been earlier breaks in communion and later attempts at reconciliation.

The events of A.D. 1054 were significant, but they did not instantly establish every feature of the lasting division as we know it today.

We will examine those events in their own study.

For now, remember this:

The division between East and West developed over time.

To understand it, we must follow the history rather than begin with a single date.

12. BUT EAST AND WEST STILL SHARED A GREAT DEAL

We should not exaggerate their differences.

Eastern and Western Christians shared an enormous amount of early Christian history.

Both looked back to the apostles.

Both received the Scriptures.

Both honored the early martyrs.

Both confessed Jesus Christ.

Both practiced baptism.

Both celebrated the Lord's Supper.

Both had bishops.

Both claimed continuity with the apostolic church.

They also shared important creeds and the decisions of major early councils, although disagreements later arose over the reception and interpretation of particular councils.

The later division did not occur because two completely unrelated religions suddenly encountered one another.

It developed within communities that shared much of the same Christian inheritance.

That is why the history deserves careful attention.

We should understand what they shared before concentrating on what divided them.

13. AND THAT BRINGS US BACK TO JESUS

Before His death, Jesus prayed for His disciples.

But He did not pray only for them.

He said:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.”

— John 17:20

That includes generations still to come.

Then He prayed:

“That they all may be one.”

— John 17:21

Jesus connected that unity with the world's belief that the Father had sent Him.

We should keep that prayer in mind throughout the studies ahead.

But we should also read the whole passage.

Jesus prayed for unity among those who would believe in Him through the apostles' word.

He did not define unity merely as the absence of disagreement or the existence of one large institution.

What kind of unity did Jesus pray for, and how is that unity connected with His word and His relationship with the Father?

Those are questions worth carrying into our study of church history.

14. OUR PURPOSE IS NOT TO CHOOSE SIDES BEFORE READING THE EVIDENCE

We are not going to begin by saying:

Rome was right.

Or:

Constantinople was right.

Nor are we going to assume that a practice must be apostolic simply because it is ancient.

We will use the same method we have used from the beginning.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Then:

WHY DID IT HAPPEN?

Then:

WHAT SCRIPTURES WERE USED?

And finally:

WHAT DO THOSE SCRIPTURES SAY IN THEIR CONTEXT?

That is the difference between beginning with a conclusion and searching for passages to support it, and beginning with the biblical text and allowing it to speak.

15. WE HAVE NOT REACHED THE GREAT SCHISM YET

Before we reach A.D. 1054, several important developments need to be understood.

One of the largest concerns the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Another concerns a small Latin word that became part of a major controversy:

FILIOQUE.

It means:

“AND THE SON.”

Those three English words became part of a dispute involving the Holy Spirit, the Nicene Creed, church authority, and eventually the relationship between East and West.

So that is where we go next.

WHO CHANGED THE CREED — AND WHY DID IT MATTER?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHO CHANGED THE CREED — AND WHY DID IT MATTER?