Truth Unites - Protestant-Oriental Orthodox Dialogue: How It Began

Episode Date: November 11, 2024

Gavin Ortlund discusses the first dialogue between Protestants and the Oriental Orthodox Church, exploring implications for ecumenical theology today. Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

This video is going to tell a story from church history that is often forgotten today or unknown today, and yet it's hugely relevant to the church today. I'm going to go out on a limb and call it a gold mine for ecumenical theology. I'll explain what I mean by that. This is the story of the first ever dialogue between Protestants and Eastern Christians, in this case, not the Eastern Orthodox, but the Oriental Orthodox. This is it will be a brief video. The goal is just to sort of tell the story briefly and quote from the letter that resulted from it. And then I have two challenges that result for my Protestant viewers. Non-Protestant Christians, I'll just let, I often argue against them. So in this case, I'll just let them draw their own conclusions. Here, I want to focus on two

challenges for Protestants. Okay, here's what we know. On May 31st, 1534, Martin Luther records in a letter that he had a dialogue with a Christian from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church named Michael the Deacon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, which resulted from the split at the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century. Michael stayed in Wittenberg for over a month, leaving on July 4th. During that time, both Luther and Melanchthon were around, and they had several meetings with Michael. Now, Michael could speak some Italian, and so there was a student at the University of Wittenberg who spoke Italian and translated, and amazingly, the dialogue seems to have gone positively. Surprisingly well, they came to

theological agreement even on the Eucharist and on the Trinity, and ultimately, Luther extended full fellowship to Deacon Michael and to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, something he didn't extend to Zvingly, and Michael apparently reciprocated with an affirmation of the Lutherans as possessing good doctrine. Now, we need to be careful here. I don't want to go too far. There's lots of reasons to be careful. These various figures don't represent everyone on their respective sides. This is not a formal counsel or something like that. Also, our information about it is limited, and the dialogue did. have language and cultural barriers. I think probably the biggest reason to be careful is that

their agreement with each other might have been easier in that context insofar as it served other polemics that they were engaged in. So we have to factor all that in. Nonetheless, this episode is very significant. Here you have an African Christian right in the cradle of the Reformation sitting at the table with Luther himself. It's just amazing. And it's astonishing that at the height of the polemics of that time, Luther, Michael, and Melanchthon could sit at the table, look across to each other and say, you're a Christian, and we're part of the same church, and you have a valid Eucharist, and we have the same basic faith. Amazing. For that time, that's pretty astonishing, and it raises lots of questions for us to work through today. Now,

I'm not alone in seeing this episode is very significant. David Daniels, who's done some great work in this area, calls it significant, and compares it to the colloquy between Luther. Luther and Zwingli. That's at Marburg five years earlier. We'll talk about that later. Stanislow Palau, a leading scholar on this episode from whom I'm drawing a lot for this video, calls this event the first significant Protestant Orthodox encounter and then writes, it's not the mere fact of such an early encounter between an Ethiopian Orthodox monk and the German reformers that make it extraordinarily significant. Of high importance is rather its theological dimension. Here's the issue. This intercultural dialogue

about the core issues of the Christian doctrine resulted in a mutually shared conviction that Ethiopian Orthodox Christians and proponents of the Wittenberg Reformation belong to the very same Church of Christ. That's the issue. That's what we're going to explore here and say, you know, what do we do with that? What do we make of that? It's kind of amazing. And to me, it's like tremendously encouraging and positive in some ways.

Now, although this dialogue was with the Lutherans, we can say that this has implications for other kinds of Protestants as well, because, Pallaslou suggests that the very fact that the Ethiopian monk had a letter of recommendation drawn up suggests he was seeking further contact with other representatives of the Reformation. And from another letter of Melancthans, we know that Michael did intend to go to France, apparently to meet with Martin Bucer. So we don't know whether that ever happened, but we know that was his intent. So in other words, we shouldn't say like, well, Michael liked the Lutherans but didn't care

about the Reformed or something like that. This has broader implications for the rest of Protestantism as well. Now, before Michael left, Luther and Melanchthon issued a formal letter of recommendation to him. This is written by Melanchthon, signed by Luther. This is the key document for interpreting this event. Ah, I'm going to read this whole thing. It's amazing, and we'll just work through it. Before I read it, though, let me do a book recommendation because people often ask me about Bible translations. This book is fresh out. It's a great book. It's called Bible Translations for Everyone by Tim Wildsmith. This is a great resource. Basically, it explains how Bible translations work. So it gets into translation philosophy and tells the story of early English Bible translations like Wycliffe

and Tyndale and the King James Version, something I'm interested in. I've been doing videos on recently. There's over 400. Did you know this? Over 400 English translations of the Bible. And so, but this goes through the major ones and just gives you pros and cons and helps you understand which, what's the history behind translations and then which one could be best for me. So I'm going to put a link to this in the video description. If that's of interest to you, I highly recommend it. All right, here's the letter. I'll read the whole thing. You'll see how significant this is and how I'm so excited to work through this. Mr. Michael, oh, no, I'll start the beginning. A letter of recommendation given to an Ethiopian by Mr. Martin Luther,

Philip Melanchthon drafted it. Mr. Michael, an Ethiopian deacon, was with us in Germany. We spoke with him about the Christian doctrine on friendly terms and heard him rightly agree with the creed that the Western Church holds, nor does he think about the Trinity any differently than what the Western Church thinks. We'll come back to that in a moment. Therefore, as much as we can, we recommend him to good people. For although the Eastern Church observes some divergent ceremonies, he judges, that's Michael, that this difference does not undermine the unity of the church nor conflict with faith, because the kingdom of Christ is spiritual righteousness of heart, fear of God, and trust through Christ.

We too approve of this opinion. We also learn from him that the right, which we observe at the Lord's supper and the Mass, is in accord with the Eastern Church. Moreover, we desire that all peoples acknowledge and glorify Christ and obey him through true trust in His mercy and through love of the neighbor. Therefore, we entreat good people that they too would show Christian love to this, visitor. Videnberg, July 4th, 1534, Martin Luther. Amazing. All right, let's work through this a little bit. The two main points of discussion referenced here that seem to have been some of the main themes in their dialogue are the Trinity and the Lord's Supper. Now, it's surprising that they would find agreement on these, especially with regard to the Trinity. You just wonder, you know,

later on, the Ethiopian Christians will have dialogue with Jesuit theologians and things like the Filiocque will come up. There's also complexities in the Ethiopian conception of of the Trinity that you wonder if those even came up here in the dialogue, the 15th century emperor Zara Jacob, whom I discussed in my previous video on Father Estefanos, had introduced the notion that the image of God refers to physical features, and then these can be attributed in some sense to the Trinity. Surely this is something Luther and Melanctin would not agree to if it had come up, but of course the big issue is the filioque clause, which is such a contributor to division between the east and the west. Luther and Melankton affirmed the filiocque, and they would have inherited

a narrative of history that would have made that affirmation seem obviously correct. Michael, of course, would not have held to that view. For him, the Nicino-Constantinopolitan-Polyt Creed would have simply always lacked the filial quo clause. And so we can just ask, you know, how can they agree on the Trinity in light of a difference like this? It's an interesting question. What some have argued is that they simply didn't understand the differences and how significant they were, or they simply didn't come up or something like this. I think this is kind of how Palislau is thinking of it. He's saying, you know, remember that in this historical context, there's such less knowledge of each other. Perhaps when they're discussing the Trinity, they're talking about other things like the word

homozyon and things like this. But on the other hand, the Ethiopian Orthodox, this is why I'm not really persuaded of that. The Ethiopian Orthodox Christians had a presence in northeast Africa and to some extent in Latin Europe. At this time in history, they had communities in Egypt, several places in Egypt. They had monastic communities also on the island of Cyprus and even in Rome. Some people think that Michael may have belonged to an Ethiopian monastic community in Rome, and this would then explain how he knew Latin, or sorry, Italian, I meant to say. Whether that's the case or not, the very fact that he knew Italian suggests he has some awareness of events in European Christianity, surely he's aware of the filioquic clause. I mean, this is a big deal, right?

And then they have multiple dialogues for over a month. So how likely is it that it just wouldn't come up at all if they're talking about the Trinity? You know? Another explanation is maybe it came up, but it simply didn't register for them as an absolute deal breaker on the more general agreement on the Trinity. That seems more plausible, but whatever the case, it's noteworthy that they were able to express agreement on such a foundational doctrine as the Trinity. Again, today we might take something like that for granted, but back at this time, the division between the east and the west was so profound. The other area of common ground that's also amazing is the Eucharist. They seem to have come together against the Roman Catholics on the one side and the Zvinglians and Anabaptists on the other side.

So they both affirmed real presence against the Zvinglians and the Antabaptists, some of them, some of the Anabaptists, and they both affirmed communion in both kinds over and against the Roman Catholics. Luther also found it significant the absence of private masses in Ethiopia, since he thought that that was an innovation introduced by Gregory the Great. And so Luther and Melanchin later on are going to appeal to Ethiopian practice when it comes to critiquing the idea of a private mass. Now, again, if they were to talk through, we don't want to make too much of this, if they were to talk through every point of Eucharistic theology. Surely some differences would have emerged, just like with the Trinity. Nonetheless, that they could arrive upon agreement on this point

is significant. Remember, Luther didn't even accept Zvingly on account of this issue. And here he is with this Ethiopian Christian, and they have full affirmation of each other. It's amazing. Now, the great, so those are two particular points, the Trinity and the Eucharist. Here's the great and obvious and shining conclusion that stands out from this. episode. These German reformers and this African monk are able to see each other as a part of the same church. Now, to me, who's very interested in these questions, this is, again, just like an amazing discovery. It's like finding water in the desert or something like that, because we take this kind of vision for granted today very often, but in the context of the 16th century where

Christians are constantly killing each other. This is not to be assumed. And the recognition is not because they're simply naive differences. They have multiple conversations over longer than a month, and they acknowledge the differences. You heard that language in the letter, they're divergent ceremonies, but they're just not seen as essential. So they're basically doing here what I call theological triage. You can note these words again, although the Eastern Church observes some divergent ceremonies, Michael judges this difference does not undermine the unity of the church. And this amazing sentence about what the kingdom of Christ consists of, it is triaging issues, and significantly that is recorded as being approved by both parties. Later, Luther summarizes

this dialogue as follows. Three years ago, there was an Ethiopian monk with us with whom we had a discussion through an interpreter. He summed up all our articles of faith by saying this is a good crata that is faith. And in a sermon around that same time, three years later, Luther is preaching on the unity of the church, and he references an Ethiopian person as a fellow Christian, that's presumably Michael, to make a point about the importance of the unity of the body of Christ. Now, here's the point. What is assumed in such a judgment that this African Christian, these European reformers, they're a part of one church, is the African Christian. And so that the African Christian, absence of a strict institutional conception of the church. Okay. They can, what they're what is assumed is

that you're able to look at Christians on the other side of the world with whom you don't have any formal relationship and say, oh, we're part of the same church. And it's assumed that there's value in recognizing that kind of unity. And this reflects something of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the early Protestants. That means just how they understood their effort as the church. They were not trying to sweep all the pieces off the chess board and start afresh. You see, we often look back at early Protestantism, and we see it only or mainly in relation to the polarizing relationship with Rome, where it's a more negative identity. This is a counterbalancing consideration when you see their relationship with Eastern Christians

like those of Ethiopia, but it's not just the Ethiopians. 40 years later, in the 1570s, other Lutherans will write to Jeremiah the 2nd, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. So this is Eastern Orthodoxy, not Oriental. And they give a copy of the Augsburg Confession. They have this dialogue, and you can see something of their mentality that I've talked a lot about elsewhere. I have a video on this too, where they say, we desire from the bottom of our hearts to

preserve a God-pleasing peace with all who love the gospel of Christ, who hold to the right interpretation of Christ, the unique teacher who speaks to us through the words of the old, as well as the New Testaments. We do not innovate on matters of faith. That sentence, that sentiment seems to recall this sentence, not, I'm not saying it is referencing, but it's very similar to this sentence from Melanchthon's letter. Moreover, we desire that all people's acknowledge and glorify Christ and obey him through true trust in his mercy and through the love of neighbor. So what do we do with all this? What do we make sense? How does this apply to us today? Well, let me just give two challenges to Protestant viewers, and then beyond that, just encourage more reflection

on this important story. First, if during the height of the polemics of the Reformation, two Germans and one Ethiopian from traditions vastly separated, were able to sit down at a table, look across at each other, and say, we're a part of the same larger church, where do we need to be more open to saying that today? Now, I want to acknowledge, this is very complicated. I know that I have viewers from different places and this appeal. I don't want this to fall on someone and be experienced as a burden. So let me just acknowledge there's tremendous sin that occurs and also tremendous error that occurs among professing Christians. And we need to be able to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that. There is physical violence that comes from those who profess

the name of Jesus, to others who profess the name of Jesus, that happens still today in the world. There is tremendous nominalism in many places of the world where just to be a Christian is the same thing as to be a member of a certain culture. You can find this in all count, and that happens in lots of different kind of contexts. So I am not trying to give a sort of blanket appeal that will crush somebody. We need to be able to protest error and sin. So, Just the fact that someone professes the name of Christ doesn't necessarily mean they are a Christian. You know, even in the Lutheran statement from the 1570s there, it talks about the right interpretation of Christ and so forth. There are boundaries. Doctrinally and spiritually,

there are boundaries around which that sort of enclose those with whom we have a true unity. I'm not, in other words, I'm not trying to say we have to have unity with every person who professes to be a Christian. We need to leave open the fact that we may need to reform and address errors and so forth. Nonetheless, I know a lot of Protestants who just kind of write off everything outside of Protestantism, and that's not a historic Protestant mentality. And whatever conclusion you come to, it shouldn't be flippant, right? We need to be careful not to abstract from one bad experience to then circumscribe a judgment around an entire group. At the very least, we want to be open-hearted to say, where may there be true faith and true

Christianity beyond what I might have expected? I often make this appeal to, to mark nine in favor of a Protestant instinct to not restrict the church institutionally. We need to challenge ourselves with that, too, where Jesus says, whoever is not against us is for us. Remember these words. I'm not trying to apply this exactly. It's just an invitation and a challenge to consider. These words from the Lutherans are a good guide. We desire from the bottom of our hearts to preserve a God-pleasing peace with all who love the gospel of Christ. We should feel the same way, too. Second challenge for Protestants is we need to consider the significance of the Lord's Supper. Luther and Melanchthon based their unity with Michael on two points, the Trinity

and the Eucharist. Now, just think about this. Number one, those are the two issues. Number two, Luther rejected fellowship with Zvingly, but accepted fellowship with Michael. Just think about that. Whatever conclusions you come to about that, whatever your view of the Lord's Supper is, I think we can acknowledge that many of my fellow evangelicals, I'm I'm an evangelical. I'm not trying to pick on evangelicals. I'm from this tribe. But many of my fellow evangelicals need to humbly consider where we have a severely malnourished doctrine of the Eucharist with the Lord's Supper, an underdeveloped understanding of the Lord's Supper. Whether you agree exactly with Luther or not fine, we can still learn from this episode. We need to go back.

you know, it would be a tremendous benefit to the body of Christ if evangelicals simply went back to their own tradition and looked at our own historic understanding of the Lord's Supper. You'll put up this picture. You can see I've done a video on the Baptist, this historic Baptist view of the Lord's Supper. Nobody knows this today or very few people know this, that historically Baptists believe in real presence. You know, this is the kind of thing where we've really, I think sometimes we've overreacted and even drifted from our own Protestant roots. And today, there's tremendous hunger for a rich sacramental practice. And that's a healthy hunger, I believe. And I think this is an area we need to work on. This episode is one example of why. Why that issue is so important.

Those are my takeaways beyond just saying, hey, let's think about this episode more. What are your takeaways? Let me know in the comments. By the way, Truth Unites has an Instagram account now. I'll put up a picture of that. If you're interested in following me on Instagram, that would be a great way to stay in touch. And please pray for Truth Unites to cause gospel assurance. That's the goal in all that we do. So hopefully, even talking about these specific episodes in church history, that's the larger goal, is to get us more rooted in the gospel itself. All right, thanks for watching everybody. Let me know what you think in the comments.