My Conversion: Orthodoxy Not Eastern Orthodoxy

Let me be so, very, abundantly clear from the beginning: I converted to Orthodoxy, not Eastern Orthodoxy, and my conversion to Orthodoxy had nothing to do with wanting to become Eastern. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with being Eastern Orthodox, and I'm exceedingly grateful for Eastern Orthodoxy...and yes, I am in fact at an Eastern Orthodox parish. However, I never wanted to be Eastern, and to be honest, I still don't. It's not the reason I'm Orthodox. Which begs the question: If I didn't want to be Eastern, and I still don't want to be Eastern, why did I convert to Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxy is not exclusively Eastern. Orthodoxy is not the same as Eastern Orthodoxy. That is the number one thing that needs to be clear in order to understand my conversion to Orthodoxy because, as I stated, I converted to Orthodoxy, not Eastern Orthodoxy. People assume that these two are the same, that Orthodox and Eastern are synonymous. But they're not. Think of it like rectangles and squares: while all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. Similarly, all of Eastern Orthodoxy is Orthodox, but not all of Orthodoxy is Eastern. To make sense of this, we need a little history lesson:

Once upon a time there was the undivided Holy Catholic Church (this name comes from the Apostles’ Creed). From the day she was born on Pentecost in 33 AD until the Great Schism (meaning split) in 1054, there was no such thing as Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism -- just the Church. The Schism caused the once-united Church to split into two groups: the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church (or, better known as the Orthodox Church). The Roman Catholic Church consisted of all the church under the Church of Rome (hence, the Roman Catholic Church). The Orthodox Catholic Church consisted of all the other churches which were from various places across modern day Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The choice of the term Orthodox in the name Orthodox Catholic Church has to do with the meaning of orthodoxy -- right practice and belief. The churches in disagreement with Rome believed that they were the ones maintaining the right practice and belief of the Christian faith, that they were orthodox Christians.

Why does this matter, you ask? Well, almost all the churches that belonged to the Orthodox Catholic Church were from what we would call the Byzantine (or Eastern) tradition, rather than the Latin (or Western) tradition which was the tradition of the Roman Church. These two traditions, Latin and Byzantine, weren't opposed to one another. They were simply localized traditions of the same Christian faith (each with unique, local histories, worship forms, hymnography, church architecture, calendar, language, etc.), and for 1000 years, both traditions had fully and faithfully been a part of the one Holy Catholic Church together. It just so happened that the split occurred along the lines of the Latin West and Byzantine East, but being Western vs Eastern had nothing to do with causing the Schism. But, because this divide occurred along the lines of East and West, it naturally led to Orthodoxy becoming synonymous with the East and Roman Catholicism with the West. So, what we've been left with today is an implicit belief that Orthodoxy is Eastern rather than Western which is Catholic.

This is why most of us assume that Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same thing. But, remember, for 1000 years before this split between East and West, both belonged to the one, undivided Church. And this is where the "Eastern = Orthodox" assumption breaks down. The churches in the East that eventually became the Orthodox Church didn't create a new tradition or Church at the Schism. They simply held to the belief that they were faithfully maintaining the one faith that had belonged to the Church since her birth at Pentecost, i.e. that they were orthodox. And prior to 1054, that one faith of the one Church, included the Latin West. For 1000 years, the Latin West held to the same apostolic faith as the Byzantine East. In other words, the Latin West was just as orthodox as the Byzantine East for over 1000 years.

So, no. Orthodoxy is not just Eastern. Orthodoxy -- the true faith and practice of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church since her birth in 33 AD -- is profoundly Western as well. Saints like Agnus, Cecilia, Lucy, Agatha, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Pope Gregory the Great, Benedict, Patrick of Ireland, Augustine of Canterbury and more -- all these were orthodox Christians who belonged to the Western, Latin tradition of the one Holy Catholic Church. These martyrs, evangelists, bishops, priests, confessors all bear witness both by their lives, writings, and legacies to the fact that Orthodoxy is the treasure of the West as much as it is the East. It wasn't until I came to realize this that I decided to become Orthodox.

Like most people, I had always assumed becoming Orthodox was the same as becoming Eastern, but I had no desire or need to become Eastern. Why should I? I wasn't Greek, or Syrian, or Serbian. I didn't speak Arabic, Greek, or Church Slavonic. Rather, I was an Anglican of Colombian, Roman Catholic heritage who had been raised in American Protestantism my whole life. My whole spiritual life was formed by the Church in the West, not the East, and I loved the rich and enormous inheritance of my ancient, Western tradition. I had absolutely no reason to become (Eastern) Orthodox. I felt this so strongly, despite my love for (Eastern) Orthodoxy, until I discovered that Orthodoxy belonged just as much to the West as it did to the East, that becoming Orthodox wasn't about becoming Eastern. It completely reshaped my understanding of Orthodoxy. And when it did, my strong feelings against Orthodox conversion were replaced by an even stronger and more compelling sense of obligation -- I had to become Orthodox.