Leaving Orthodoxy
“The following article was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack
Kettler]; I have edited it with Grammarly AI for style.”
“A Commendable Critique: Joshua Schooping, ‘Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church’ (Theophany Press, 2022; 2nd ed., 2022).”
In the burgeoning field of intra-Christian theological dialogue, particularly amid the contemporary “conversion narratives” that have drawn many from Protestant traditions into the embrace of Eastern Orthodoxy, Joshua Schooping’s “Disillusioned” emerges as a singular and indispensable contribution. Schooping, formerly a priest in both the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), having completed theological formation at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and served approximately five years in parochial ministry, writes not as an external polemicist but as one who has traversed the full arc of reception, ordination, and conscientious departure. Now serving as pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Russellville, Arkansas, he offers what may justly be termed the most rigorous insider critique of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, iconology, and soteriology yet produced in English. Far from a mere memoir of disaffection, the volume constitutes a meticulously documented “apologia” for the purity of the evangelical Gospel, grounded in a novel “canonical argument” that holds the Orthodox tradition accountable to its own conciliar and synodical “auctoritates”.
The work is structured in two principal parts. Part I, “Personal Impressions,” comprises a single, candid chapter, “The Ravings of an Apostate,” wherein Schooping narrates his journey out of the priesthood. This section is no sensational exposé but a theologically reflective account of intellectual and spiritual awakening. During the constraints of the recent pandemic, Schooping undertook the labor of compiling “The Holy Standards”, a comprehensive collection of Orthodox canons and synodical decrees. This exercise, far from confirming the much-vaunted “unchanging Tradition,” precipitated a crisis: the discovery that formal Orthodox positions—articulated in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy and the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council—pronounce anathemas upon non-Orthodox Christians, equate refusal of iconodulia with damnation, and embed within the liturgical and dogmatic corpus assertions that, in Schooping’s sober judgment, “formally confuses the Gospel through its iconology, its ecclesiology, and even through its Mariology” (p. 22). The personal narrative is thus subordinated to doctrinal discovery, modeling the integration of “vita? and “theologia” that characterizes the best patristic and Reformation-era reflection.
Part II, “Doctrinal Studies,” constitutes the scholarly core and spans nine chapters plus an introductory exposition of the methodological key: the “canonical argument.” Rather than pitting selective patristic florilegia against one another—a tactic frequently employed in Orthodox apologetics—Schooping insists that Orthodoxy must be judged by its own authoritative, binding synodal statements. This approach is both irenic and devastating, for it eschews impressionistic critique in favor of immanent accountability. Chapter 1 (“Sect: The Inextricably Exclusive Ecclesiology”) demonstrates how the Orthodox Church’s self-understanding as the “una sancta” necessitates the formal exclusion of all other baptized Christians from the Body of Christ, rendering extracanonical ecclesial communities not merely deficient but soteriologically null. Subsequent chapters dissect iconology with particular acuity: Chapter 2 (“Iconology and Imperial Captivity”) traces the “metamorphosis of theology” under Romano-Byzantine imperial influence, distinguishing Protestant aniconism from both iconoclasm and the mandated “proskynesis” of the Second Council of Nicaea (787); Chapter 3 offers a precise refutation of St. John of Damascus’s “Apologia” against those who accuse the Damascene of conflating “latria” and “douleia”.
The Mariological sections (Chapters 4–5, “Reshaming Eve” and “Mary, A Novel Way”) are especially noteworthy for their engagement with Gregory Palamas and the Akathist Hymn tradition. Schooping demonstrates how Palamite hesychasm and the liturgical elevation of the Theotokos as “source of life,” “sin offering,” and co-mediatrix subtly shift the “ordo salutis” away from the sole sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work toward a synergistic economy in which the Virgin becomes instrumental in the distribution of uncreated energies. Far from dishonoring the Mother of God, Schooping argues, a robustly biblical and patristic Mariology—drawing upon Irenaeus (Chapter 7)—preserves her as the exemplar of receptive faith rather than a quasi-soteriological principle. Chapter 6 (“Anathema”) confronts the ritual cursing embedded in the Synodikon, while Chapters 8–9 engage Cyprian of Carthage and Irenaeus on ecclesial unity and presuppositional authority, exposing the anachronistic projection of later conciliarism onto the ante-Nicene Church. Appendices and excursuses further buttress the analysis with primary-source translations and historical contextualization.
What renders “Disillusioned” particularly commendable is its methodological rigor and evangelical warmth. Schooping’s command of the Greek and Slavonic sources, his familiarity with the liturgical corpus, and his refusal to caricature render the critique unassailable on grounds of ignorance or bigotry. The volume exemplifies what Richard Muller has termed “confessional irenicism”: a critique born not of sectarian animus but of zeal for the “sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus” that the author rediscovered—surprisingly—in patristic witnesses to penal substitutionary atonement. By foregrounding the Gospel’s clarity over against any ecclesial “pleroma” that would condition justification upon ritual veneration or institutional exclusivity, Schooping performs a genuine service to the “una sancta catholica”.
The book’s publication has, predictably, elicited responses from within Orthodox clergy circles, furnishing an illuminating case study in the very dynamics it critiques. Most notably, the June 18, 2025, episode of “Ancient Faith Today Live” (“Answering the Claims of a Former Priest”), hosted by Fr. Thomas Soroka with additional Orthodox participants, sought to address Schooping’s arguments. Regrettably, the discussion largely bypassed substantive engagement with the canonical citations—e.g., the Synodikon’s anathemas or Nicaea II’s equation of icon denial with “complete separation from God”—in favor of ad hominem observations regarding the author’s brevity of tenure, alleged instability, or supposed failure to grasp “living Tradition.” Similar tones appear in scattered online Orthodox forums and video responses (e.g., those associated with Fr. John Whiteford). Such rejoinders, while understandable as pastoral defense of the faithful, inadvertently corroborate Schooping’s central thesis: when pressed to defend formal positions rather than curated patristic excerpts or the authority of the “Church” qua living magisterium, Orthodox apologetics frequently retreats into appeals to experience or authority that presuppose the very ecclesiology under scrutiny. Schooping himself has graciously engaged in these exchanges in subsequent interviews (e.g., on “Truth Unites” with Gavin Ortlund and on Lutheran podcasts), modeling the very charity and clarity his critics sometimes lack. These interactions only enhance the book’s value as a catalyst for serious ecumenical theology.
In sum, “Disillusioned” is a work of genuine theological courage and scholarly depth. It will prove indispensable for seminarians, pastors, and laity navigating the contemporary appeal of Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as for Orthodox theologians willing to grapple honestly with their tradition’s conciliar legacy. By recovering the Gospel’s purity from within the very structures that once seemed to embody it most fully, Joshua Schooping has rendered a signal service to the Church catholic. One hopes that this volume will not only disillusion the overly romantic but also re-enchant many with the Reformation’s retrieval of apostolic simplicity. Highly recommended.
An Addendum
Distinctives in Orthodox Conciliar Teaching Formally Bar Non-Orthodox from the Ordinary Economy of Salvation.
In the dogmatic self-understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church—as expressed in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy (proclaimed annually on the First Sunday of Great Lent since 843), the Confession of Dositheus issued by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), and the broader patristic-synodical consensus—the Church is the unique ark of salvation, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Body of Christ in which alone the fullness of deifying grace (*theosis*) is ordinarily accessible. The classical formula “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (no salvation outside the Church), rooted in St. Cyprian of Carthage and reaffirmed in Orthodox sources, is not merely rhetorical; it carries binding ecclesiological weight. While many contemporary Orthodox hierarchs and theologians (e.g., statements from the Orthodox Church in America and Greek Orthodox Archdiocese) invoke divine “oikonomia” (economy/mercy) to leave the ultimate fate of non-Orthodox Christians to the inscrutable judgment of God—who “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4)—the formal, conciliar positions treat persistent rejection of Orthodox distinctives as schism or heresy that severs one from the sacramental life of the Church. God may save “extraordinary” individuals outside the visible bounds, but such salvation is not the normative path Christ instituted.
The question already identifies two such distinctives: (1) “Orthodox baptism” (understood as triple immersion with the Trinitarian formula, effecting regeneration and the remission of original and actual sins, with an indelible character—Decree 16 of Dositheus), and (2) “the embrace of icons” (veneration with “proskynesis” as dogmatized by the Seventh Ecumenical Council and enshrined in the Synodikon, where refusal is equated with “apostasy from Christ” and “complete separation from God,” anathematized repeatedly with the triple curse: “Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!”). These are non-negotiable for full ecclesial membership.
Beyond these, the following additional Orthodox distinctives are formally required and function as barriers according to the same authoritative texts. Rejection of any places one outside the Church’s salvific economy:
1. Chrismation (Confirmation) as the Immediate Complement to Baptism and Seal of the Holy Spirit. Orthodox initiation is triune: baptism → chrismation → Eucharist. Holy chrism, consecrated by a bishop and containing the “energies” of the Spirit, imparts the full gift of the Paraclete for theosis (Decree 15 of Dositheus lists it among the seven mysteries as conveying “efficient grace, not mere signs”). Protestants and many Catholics lack this mystery in its Orthodox form; without it, the baptized remain incomplete in the Orthodox view. The Synodikon implicitly includes this under innovations outside patristic tradition.
2. The Real, Substantial Presence in the Eucharist (Metousiosis) and Its Character as Propitiatory Sacrifice. Decree 17 of Dositheus explicitly teaches that the bread and wine become the very Body and Blood of Christ “by metousiosis” (a term parallel to transubstantiation), to be adored with “latria” (divine worship). The Divine Liturgy is a true, bloodless sacrifice offered to the Trinity for the living and the dead. Symbolic or memorialist views (common in Protestantism) are condemned as denying the “real sacrifice.” The Synodikon anathematizes those who deny the daily Liturgy’s identity with the Cross or who treat the Eucharist as a mere figure. Regular, worthy reception in an Orthodox temple is essential to theosis; extracanonical communion is invalid.
3. The Intercession of Saints, Veneration of Relics, and Elevated Mariology. Decree 8 affirms that, while Christ is the sole Mediator, the saints (especially the Theotokos) intercede effectively; their relics and icons are to be venerated with *dulia* (or “hyperdulia” for Mary). The Akathist Hymn tradition and Palamite theology elevate the Virgin as “source of life” and co-worker in salvation. The Synodikon curses those who reject saintly intercession or miracles as “vain opinions.” Protestants who reject prayers to saints or the Theotokos’s perpetual virginity, sinlessness in Orthodox terms, and mediatorial role stand under these anathemas.
4. Synergistic Soteriology: Faith Working through Love, Works, and Cooperation with Uncreated Grace for Theosis. Decrees 3, 9, 13, and 14 of Dositheus reject *sola fide*, unconditional predestination, and total inability, insisting that justification is by “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6) and that post-baptismal free will cooperates with divine energies (the Palamite essence-energies distinction, anathematized against Barlaam in the Synodikon). Salvation is deification—a lifelong process of acquiring the divine likeness through sacraments, asceticism, prayer (including hesychasm), and good works. Monergism or forensic justification alone is anathematized as “blasphemous” and “worse than the infidels.”
5. Infallible Authority of Holy Tradition, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and the Church’s Magisterium. Decrees 2, 10, 11, and 12 of Dositheus affirm that Scripture is interpreted only by the Church, which is infallible through the Holy Spirit speaking in Fathers and Synods. “Sola scriptura” is rejected; private judgment leads to heresy. The Synodikon curses “innovations outside Church tradition” and those who reject any of the seven councils. Acceptance of the full conciliar deposit (including Nicaea II on icons) is required.
6. Rejection of the Filioque and Other Western “Innovations” (e.g., Purgatory in the Latin sense, Papal Supremacy, Unleavened Bread). The 1583 patriarchal addition to the Synodikon (ratified by Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem) anathematizes those who do not confess the Spirit proceeds “from the Father only,” who receive one kind in communion, who use unleavened bread, who posit a purgatorial fire ending torments by indulgences, or who accept the Pope as universal head. Decree 18 of Dositheus affirms prayers for the dead that aid souls in intermediate states. These separate Catholics and Protestants alike.
7. Visible Communion in the One Orthodox Church under Bishops in Apostolic Succession. Decree 10 insists on the episcopal hierarchy as essential; the Church is not an “invisible” body of all believers. The Synodikon’s general anathema, “To all heretics: Anathema!”—and its specific curses on schismatics close the circle: only those baptized, chrismated, and communing within the canonical Orthodox Church (currently in communion with Constantinople, Moscow, etc., despite current tensions) participate fully in salvation’s normal means.
In sum, these distinctives form an integrated “phronema” (mindset) and liturgical-sacramental reality. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) was convened precisely to delineate them from Reformed Protestantism, producing a document that was received pan-Orthodoxly as a symbolic text. The Synodikon, read liturgically, ritually enacts the exclusion of all who persist in these “heresies.” Joshua Schooping’s “Disillusioned” rightly highlights how such formal positions—especially the anathemas and exclusive ecclesiology—embed a soteriology that conditions the Gospel’s clarity upon institutional and ritual adherence, rendering non-Orthodox (even sincere Trinitarian Christians) formally outside the ark.
Orthodox pastoral practice today often softens this with economia (e.g., receiving certain converts by chrismation only, or hoping in God’s mercy), yet the conciliar texts remain unrepealed and liturgically proclaimed. Thus, from the strict Orthodox standpoint, yes, far more than baptism and icons stand between non-Orthodox Christians and the assured path to theosis. The question of whether God nevertheless saves many outside these bounds belongs to His sovereign mercy, not to the Church’s ordinary proclamation.
A heartfelt plea:
In light of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy’s repeated anathemas (proclaimed liturgically each year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy), the decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), and the explicit statements of the Seventh Ecumenical Council equating refusal of icon veneration with apostasy and ‘complete separation from God’—as well as the broader conciliar insistence that the Orthodox Church alone is the ark of salvation in its ordinary economy—have you personally informed your non-Orthodox Christian friends and family (Protestant, Roman Catholic, or otherwise) that, according to the binding teaching of the Church you have joined, their persistent rejection of these distinctives (Orthodox baptism, chrismation, Eucharistic metousiosis as propitiatory sacrifice, synergistic theosis via uncreated energies, veneration of icons and saints, rejection of the Filioque and sola scriptura, etc.) places them formally outside the salvific communion of the one true Church and under the risk of eternal damnation unless they embrace and enter the Orthodox faith? If not, how do you reconcile withholding this consequence with your new conviction that these are not mere opinions but dogmas essential to the fullness of the Gospel?
“The above article was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack Kettler]; I have edited it with Grammarly AI for style, and using AI for the glory of God.”
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
For more research: “The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy.” https://www.orthodox.video/
The Religion That Started in a Hat 