What do you think?
Rate this book
Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church
The Eastern Orthodox Church presents many conundrums for Protestants who are seeking to assess its theology. Although there is much within their rich Patristic heritage that is a cause for appreciation, the present book seeks to provide a critical analysis of certain of its core canonical claims, especially as these relate to iconology, Mariology, and ecclesiology. The contents of this book by a former Eastern Orthodox priest will help provide the reader with tools to get past superficial assessments in order to penetrate where the real problems within the Eastern Orthodox Church reside.
253 pages, Paperback
Published February 22, 2023
57 people are currently reading
120 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
January 12, 2024
**OPENING DISCLAIMER**
**I'm a Protestant minister exploring Orthodoxy. While I'm sympathetic to Orthodox theology, I share many of Schooping's convictions. Thus, I have no horse in this race, and this is a good faith critique. **
**This review concerns the re-released Second Edition**
I don't at all doubt the authenticity of his conversion, but I'm genuinely confused about how Joshua Schooping could have become an Orthodox priest when he has this many problems with it.
I don't know the man and I have *no* doubt that he means every word that he writes, but reading this book I got the impression that he's a Reformed Christian who was wooed by the aesthetic and history of Orthodoxy (he admits as much in Part 1), but couldn't dismiss his Reformed presuppositions. This is further evidenced by the fact that the major segment of the book that puts forth a reasoned argument (chapter 9: Irenaus and Presuppositionalism) consists of Schooping arguing against... his past self.
Apparently, as an Orthodox academic, Schooping developed a theory of "Orthodox Presuppositionalism", which he then dismantles in this book. This is telling. As far as I'm aware, in the 2000ish years of Orthodox theology, nothing resembling presuppositional apologetics (especially the Van Til-ish type Schooping attempts) ever developed. It is, however, a foundational part of Reformed theology. That Schooping was trying to fit Orthodoxy into a foreign (specifically Reformed) conceptual grid is an interesting intellectual exercise, but ultimately fails. The problem comes when Schooping realizes that his theory fails, and extrapolates this to mean that Orthodoxy *itself* fails.
This goes a long way to explain why this book (for the most part) comes across as a rather generic list of problems that Reformed believers have with Orthodoxy, rather than being particularly informed by Schooping's experience as a priest and academic. There's nothing wrong with being a Reformed Christian of course. The problem is that - rather than comparing the Orthodox and Reformed hermeneutical grid and making a reasoned argument for Protestantism - Schooping simply asserts that the Reformed understanding is THE biblical understanding. Thus, for Schooping, anywhere that Orthodoxy disagrees with the Continental Reformed tradition, it therefore disagrees with "the Gospel".
This is a very common feature of Reformed apologetics, but I was hoping for more measured interrogation from someone who was actually Orthodox.
Each of the chapters (which seem to have been blog posts compiled into a book) follows a similar pattern: - Mention Dositheus or the Council of Jerusalem - presuppose Reformed hermeneutics - cite Orthodox documents that disagree with Reformed hermeneutics - express shock - conclude that the Orthodox teaching is "contra the Gospel" due to its disagreement with Reformed theology.
Chapter 1 (exclusivism) simply assumes that exclusivist ecclesiology (or at least Schooping's understanding of it) is wrong because it denies the full Christianity of Protestant believers. It's totally fine to disagree with this (I do too), but Schooping fails to make a clear case here.
Chapter 2 (on icons) simply assumes that any development in doctrine is wrong specifically because it developed. The argument entirely hinges on the Regulative Principle of Worship. This one will work if the reader is already convinced by the RPW, but it fails to make a positive argument in its favor.
Chapter 3 (on John of Damascus) seems to center on the idea that Deuteronomy 4:15 refers only to one specific event, and that the burning bush/pillar of fire/pillar of smoke were "forms" for God. Therefore, because the people saw these "forms", the prohibition on images must exist in perpetuity as an essential command of God. This seems to just be a poor reading of JoD. He deals with this exact argument in his Treatises on The Images. Plus it implies that Moses was wrong to connect Deut 4:15 to the 2nd Commandment. That's... problematic to say the least.
Chapters 4&5 (on Mary) are a particularly low point. The chapter is pretty much just a (very) long list of quotes that Schooping simply assumes are in error and contradict Scripture. He barely engages with the Orthodox understanding of these hymns and prayers at all. On a personal level, I am *very* uncomfortable with some of the language used of Mary, particularly in the Akathists and Palamas. But Schooping totally fails to provide an argument as to *why* I should reject them as unbiblical. He simply presents the quotes as if it were self-evident and moves on. The fact that I'm inclined to agree with Schooping - and yet almost stopped reading here - says a lot about the quality of his argument.
Chapter 6 is just an expansion on Chapter 1, specifically regarding the Synodikon. Schooping uses a dubious source as the basis of his entire argument, and basically just restates that the EOC believes they are the true Church. If they believe they're the true Church, then *of course* they believe all the others are false and therefore lying. This chapter reads like a long excursis on how shocked Schooping is by a not-at-all-secret aspect of Orthodox liturgy.
I'm genuinely not sure what Chapter 7 is doing in this book, let alone separated from the chapters on Mariology. He disagrees with Irenaeus for exactly the same reasons expressed earlier.
Chapter 8 is an attempt to say that Cyprian taught a proto-form of the doctrine of the invisible church. This one presupposes two things. Presupposition 1: obviously the visible church at the time was bad because it was "imperial". Presupposition 2: the church was only unified "administratively", and that each individual church was run like a modern Presbyterian church. This chapter reads like the Presbyterian version of the infamous "Trail of Blood", and was incredibly hard to take seriously. And I'm from a tradition that embraces independent congregations!
I've already addressed Chapter 9 above.
Appendix 1 is actually very well done, and is the source of the second star in my review. Trenham does oversimplify and have a very triumphalist attitude towards "Protestants" in general. Ironically, Schooping has done the exact same thing in the body of this book... oops.
Appendix 2 is Schooping presupposing that harsh asceticism is unbiblical and thus bad. He presents no substantial positive argument, instead just repeating the tactic of Chapters 4&5: drop a bunch of quotes with shocked commentary in between.
Appendix 3 is honestly just silly. The crux of the argument seems to be that everything good in Russian Orthodox spirituality is good because it's actually Protestant. The basis for this argument? St. Tikhon really liked a Lutheran writer and used some of his ideas. Again, I'm a Protestant. This chapter was a bit embarrassing.
This is an incredibly long review, because I was very disappointed by this book. I was really hoping for some incisive arguments against Orthodoxy, because I've struggled to find any Protestant apologists that deal seriously with their EO opponents. Instead what I got was reheated presuppositionalism, the regulative principle, and a very long refutation of an idea that no one even holds ("Orthodox presuppositionalism").
I'll be keeping an eye out for any further releases from Schooping, because he's clearly a very smart guy. He clearly has something to say, and he must have actual arguments, otherwise he wouldn't have re-verted to Protestantism. I just wish they would have been expressed in this book. I can't help but feel like this was rushed out to coincide with the media spotlight that was placed on Schooping after his departure from the EOC. If he takes his time and makes arguments, I'll gladly read what he publishes next.
**I'm a Protestant minister exploring Orthodoxy. While I'm sympathetic to Orthodox theology, I share many of Schooping's convictions. Thus, I have no horse in this race, and this is a good faith critique. **
**This review concerns the re-released Second Edition**
I don't at all doubt the authenticity of his conversion, but I'm genuinely confused about how Joshua Schooping could have become an Orthodox priest when he has this many problems with it.
I don't know the man and I have *no* doubt that he means every word that he writes, but reading this book I got the impression that he's a Reformed Christian who was wooed by the aesthetic and history of Orthodoxy (he admits as much in Part 1), but couldn't dismiss his Reformed presuppositions. This is further evidenced by the fact that the major segment of the book that puts forth a reasoned argument (chapter 9: Irenaus and Presuppositionalism) consists of Schooping arguing against... his past self.
Apparently, as an Orthodox academic, Schooping developed a theory of "Orthodox Presuppositionalism", which he then dismantles in this book. This is telling. As far as I'm aware, in the 2000ish years of Orthodox theology, nothing resembling presuppositional apologetics (especially the Van Til-ish type Schooping attempts) ever developed. It is, however, a foundational part of Reformed theology. That Schooping was trying to fit Orthodoxy into a foreign (specifically Reformed) conceptual grid is an interesting intellectual exercise, but ultimately fails. The problem comes when Schooping realizes that his theory fails, and extrapolates this to mean that Orthodoxy *itself* fails.
This goes a long way to explain why this book (for the most part) comes across as a rather generic list of problems that Reformed believers have with Orthodoxy, rather than being particularly informed by Schooping's experience as a priest and academic. There's nothing wrong with being a Reformed Christian of course. The problem is that - rather than comparing the Orthodox and Reformed hermeneutical grid and making a reasoned argument for Protestantism - Schooping simply asserts that the Reformed understanding is THE biblical understanding. Thus, for Schooping, anywhere that Orthodoxy disagrees with the Continental Reformed tradition, it therefore disagrees with "the Gospel".
This is a very common feature of Reformed apologetics, but I was hoping for more measured interrogation from someone who was actually Orthodox.
Each of the chapters (which seem to have been blog posts compiled into a book) follows a similar pattern: - Mention Dositheus or the Council of Jerusalem - presuppose Reformed hermeneutics - cite Orthodox documents that disagree with Reformed hermeneutics - express shock - conclude that the Orthodox teaching is "contra the Gospel" due to its disagreement with Reformed theology.
Chapter 1 (exclusivism) simply assumes that exclusivist ecclesiology (or at least Schooping's understanding of it) is wrong because it denies the full Christianity of Protestant believers. It's totally fine to disagree with this (I do too), but Schooping fails to make a clear case here.
Chapter 2 (on icons) simply assumes that any development in doctrine is wrong specifically because it developed. The argument entirely hinges on the Regulative Principle of Worship. This one will work if the reader is already convinced by the RPW, but it fails to make a positive argument in its favor.
Chapter 3 (on John of Damascus) seems to center on the idea that Deuteronomy 4:15 refers only to one specific event, and that the burning bush/pillar of fire/pillar of smoke were "forms" for God. Therefore, because the people saw these "forms", the prohibition on images must exist in perpetuity as an essential command of God. This seems to just be a poor reading of JoD. He deals with this exact argument in his Treatises on The Images. Plus it implies that Moses was wrong to connect Deut 4:15 to the 2nd Commandment. That's... problematic to say the least.
Chapters 4&5 (on Mary) are a particularly low point. The chapter is pretty much just a (very) long list of quotes that Schooping simply assumes are in error and contradict Scripture. He barely engages with the Orthodox understanding of these hymns and prayers at all. On a personal level, I am *very* uncomfortable with some of the language used of Mary, particularly in the Akathists and Palamas. But Schooping totally fails to provide an argument as to *why* I should reject them as unbiblical. He simply presents the quotes as if it were self-evident and moves on. The fact that I'm inclined to agree with Schooping - and yet almost stopped reading here - says a lot about the quality of his argument.
Chapter 6 is just an expansion on Chapter 1, specifically regarding the Synodikon. Schooping uses a dubious source as the basis of his entire argument, and basically just restates that the EOC believes they are the true Church. If they believe they're the true Church, then *of course* they believe all the others are false and therefore lying. This chapter reads like a long excursis on how shocked Schooping is by a not-at-all-secret aspect of Orthodox liturgy.
I'm genuinely not sure what Chapter 7 is doing in this book, let alone separated from the chapters on Mariology. He disagrees with Irenaeus for exactly the same reasons expressed earlier.
Chapter 8 is an attempt to say that Cyprian taught a proto-form of the doctrine of the invisible church. This one presupposes two things. Presupposition 1: obviously the visible church at the time was bad because it was "imperial". Presupposition 2: the church was only unified "administratively", and that each individual church was run like a modern Presbyterian church. This chapter reads like the Presbyterian version of the infamous "Trail of Blood", and was incredibly hard to take seriously. And I'm from a tradition that embraces independent congregations!
I've already addressed Chapter 9 above.
Appendix 1 is actually very well done, and is the source of the second star in my review. Trenham does oversimplify and have a very triumphalist attitude towards "Protestants" in general. Ironically, Schooping has done the exact same thing in the body of this book... oops.
Appendix 2 is Schooping presupposing that harsh asceticism is unbiblical and thus bad. He presents no substantial positive argument, instead just repeating the tactic of Chapters 4&5: drop a bunch of quotes with shocked commentary in between.
Appendix 3 is honestly just silly. The crux of the argument seems to be that everything good in Russian Orthodox spirituality is good because it's actually Protestant. The basis for this argument? St. Tikhon really liked a Lutheran writer and used some of his ideas. Again, I'm a Protestant. This chapter was a bit embarrassing.
This is an incredibly long review, because I was very disappointed by this book. I was really hoping for some incisive arguments against Orthodoxy, because I've struggled to find any Protestant apologists that deal seriously with their EO opponents. Instead what I got was reheated presuppositionalism, the regulative principle, and a very long refutation of an idea that no one even holds ("Orthodox presuppositionalism").
I'll be keeping an eye out for any further releases from Schooping, because he's clearly a very smart guy. He clearly has something to say, and he must have actual arguments, otherwise he wouldn't have re-verted to Protestantism. I just wish they would have been expressed in this book. I can't help but feel like this was rushed out to coincide with the media spotlight that was placed on Schooping after his departure from the EOC. If he takes his time and makes arguments, I'll gladly read what he publishes next.
August 6, 2025
Really really good.
March 2, 2025
This is a book written to a specific audience who is seeking an in-depth understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I thought it was very thorough, clearly written and accessible to anyone who might have an interest in the beliefs and history of the EOC.
June 7, 2024
This is a good resource for someone who is curious about Eastern Orthodoxy...to make them not interested anymore. Schooping persuasively argues, from the hymns, councils, and liturgy of the EOC itself, that it is terribly exclusivist, conceives of Mary as the pathway to heaven, convinces of the "Church" (itself) as the only source of sure knowledge of the canon, and so forth.
There are numerous repetitions in the book which make it frustrating to read, however. Many quotes are recycled throughout, and whole chapters (like the two on Mariology) cover much of the same ground. This book, probably taken from blog posts, was carelessly compiled and organized.
The biggest flaw of this book is that Schooping doesn't interact with any contemporary Orthodox thinkers at all. The conversation is one-sided, because you have the author (contemporary evangelical) discoursing about the EO's interpretation/explanation of their sources, but without any interaction with Orthodox authorities's commentary on those sources! Instead, we get some statements like "Now, at this point, EO people would say, Y, and Z, to try and get out of X." Show me the money, sir!
Also, despite appearances, it is not a story of how an orthodox priest became evangelical. It is rather an unbalanced collection of theological and historical essays on specific topics about Eastern Orthodoxy and his critique of their doctrines. Not a bad collection, but there is little in the way of autobiography here (mostly in the introduction.)
There are numerous repetitions in the book which make it frustrating to read, however. Many quotes are recycled throughout, and whole chapters (like the two on Mariology) cover much of the same ground. This book, probably taken from blog posts, was carelessly compiled and organized.
The biggest flaw of this book is that Schooping doesn't interact with any contemporary Orthodox thinkers at all. The conversation is one-sided, because you have the author (contemporary evangelical) discoursing about the EO's interpretation/explanation of their sources, but without any interaction with Orthodox authorities's commentary on those sources! Instead, we get some statements like "Now, at this point, EO people would say, Y, and Z, to try and get out of X." Show me the money, sir!
Also, despite appearances, it is not a story of how an orthodox priest became evangelical. It is rather an unbalanced collection of theological and historical essays on specific topics about Eastern Orthodoxy and his critique of their doctrines. Not a bad collection, but there is little in the way of autobiography here (mostly in the introduction.)
January 12, 2024
**OPENING DISCLAIMER**
**I'm a Protestant minister exploring Orthodoxy. While I'm sympathetic to Orthodox theology, I share many of Schooping's convictions. Thus, I have no horse in this race, and this is a good faith critique. **
**This review concerns the re-released Second Edition**
I don't at all doubt the authenticity of his conversion, but I'm genuinely confused about how Joshua Schooping could have become an Orthodox priest when he has this many problems with it.
I don't know the man and I have *no* doubt that he means every word that he writes, but reading this book I got the impression that he's a Reformed Christian who was wooed by the aesthetic and history of Orthodoxy (he admits as much in Part 1), but couldn't dismiss his Reformed presuppositions. This is further evidenced by the fact that the major segment of the book that puts forth a reasoned argument (chapter 9: Irenaus and Presuppositionalism) consists of Schooping arguing against... his past self.
Apparently, as an Orthodox academic, Schooping developed a theory of "Orthodox Presuppositionalism", which he then dismantles in this book. This is telling. As far as I'm aware, in the 2000ish years of Orthodox theology, nothing resembling presuppositional apologetics (especially the Van Til-ish type Schooping attempts) ever developed. It is, however, a foundational part of Reformed theology. That Schooping was trying to fit Orthodoxy into a foreign (specifically Reformed) conceptual grid is an interesting intellectual exercise, but ultimately fails. The problem comes when Schooping realizes that his theory fails, and extrapolates this to mean that Orthodoxy *itself* fails.
This goes a long way to explain why this book (for the most part) comes across as a rather generic list of problems that Reformed believers have with Orthodoxy, rather than being particularly informed by Schooping's experience as a priest and academic. There's nothing wrong with being a Reformed Christian of course. The problem is that - rather than comparing the Orthodox and Reformed hermeneutical grid and making a reasoned argument for Protestantism - Schooping simply asserts that the Reformed understanding is THE biblical understanding. Thus, for Schooping, anywhere that Orthodoxy disagrees with the Continental Reformed tradition, it therefore disagrees with "the Gospel".
This is a very common feature of Reformed apologetics, but I was hoping for more measured interrogation from someone who was actually Orthodox.
Each of the chapters (which seem to have been blog posts compiled into a book) follows a similar pattern: - Mention Dositheus or the Council of Jerusalem - presuppose Reformed hermeneutics - cite Orthodox documents that disagree with Reformed hermeneutics - express shock - conclude that the Orthodox teaching is "contra the Gospel" due to its disagreement with Reformed theology.
Chapter 1 (exclusivism) simply assumes that exclusivist ecclesiology (or at least Schooping's understanding of it) is wrong because it denies the full Christianity of Protestant believers. It's totally fine to disagree with this (I do too), but Schooping fails to make a clear case here.
Chapter 2 (on icons) simply assumes that any development in doctrine is wrong specifically because it developed. The argument entirely hinges on the Regulative Principle of Worship. This one will work if the reader is already convinced by the RPW, but it fails to make a positive argument in its favor.
Chapter 3 (on John of Damascus) seems to center on the idea that Deuteronomy 4:15 refers only to one specific event, and that the burning bush/pillar of fire/pillar of smoke were "forms" for God. Therefore, because the people saw these "forms", the prohibition on images must exist in perpetuity as an essential command of God. This seems to just be a poor reading of JoD. He deals with this exact argument in his Treatises on The Images. Plus it implies that Moses was wrong to connect Deut 4:15 to the 2nd Commandment. That's... problematic to say the least.
Chapters 4&5 (on Mary) are a particularly low point. The chapter is pretty much just a (very) long list of quotes that Schooping simply assumes are in error and contradict Scripture. He barely engages with the Orthodox understanding of these hymns and prayers at all. On a personal level, I am *very* uncomfortable with some of the language used of Mary, particularly in the Akathists and Palamas. But Schooping totally fails to provide an argument as to *why* I should reject them as unbiblical. He simply presents the quotes as if it were self-evident and moves on. The fact that I'm inclined to agree with Schooping - and yet almost stopped reading here - says a lot about the quality of his argument.
Chapter 6 is just an expansion on Chapter 1, specifically regarding the Synodikon. Schooping uses a dubious source as the basis of his entire argument, and basically just restates that the EOC believes they are the true Church. If they believe they're the true Church, then *of course* they believe all the others are false and therefore lying. This chapter reads like a long excursis on how shocked Schooping is by a not-at-all-secret aspect of Orthodox liturgy.
I'm genuinely not sure what Chapter 7 is doing in this book, let alone separated from the chapters on Mariology. He disagrees with Irenaeus for exactly the same reasons expressed earlier.
Chapter 8 is an attempt to say that Cyprian taught a proto-form of the doctrine of the invisible church. This one presupposes two things. Presupposition 1: obviously the visible church at the time was bad because it was "imperial". Presupposition 2: the church was only unified "administratively", and that each individual church was run like a modern Presbyterian church. This chapter reads like the Presbyterian version of the infamous "Trail of Blood", and was incredibly hard to take seriously. And I'm from a tradition that embraces independent congregations!
I've already addressed Chapter 9 above.
Appendix 1 is actually very well done, and is the source of the second star in my review. Trenham does oversimplify and have a very triumphalist attitude towards "Protestants" in general. Ironically, Schooping has done the exact same thing in the body of this book... oops.
Appendix 2 is Schooping presupposing that harsh asceticism is unbiblical and thus bad. He presents no substantial positive argument, instead just repeating the tactic of Chapters 4&5: drop a bunch of quotes with shocked commentary in between.
Appendix 3 is honestly just silly. The crux of the argument seems to be that everything good in Russian Orthodox spirituality is good because it's actually Protestant. The basis for this argument? St. Tikhon really liked a Lutheran writer and used some of his ideas. Again, I'm a Protestant. This chapter was a bit embarrassing.
This is an incredibly long review, because I was very disappointed by this book. I was really hoping for some incisive arguments against Orthodoxy, because I've struggled to find any Protestant apologists that deal seriously with their EO opponents. Instead what I got was reheated presuppositionalism, the regulative principle, and a very long refutation of an idea that no one even holds ("Orthodox presuppositionalism").
I'll be keeping an eye out for any further releases from Schooping, because he's clearly a very smart guy. He clearly has something to say, and he must have actual arguments, otherwise he wouldn't have re-verted to Protestantism. I just wish they would have been expressed in this book. I can't help but feel like this was rushed out to coincide with the media spotlight that was placed on Schooping after his departure from the EOC. If he takes his time and makes arguments, I'll gladly read what he publishes next.
**I'm a Protestant minister exploring Orthodoxy. While I'm sympathetic to Orthodox theology, I share many of Schooping's convictions. Thus, I have no horse in this race, and this is a good faith critique. **
**This review concerns the re-released Second Edition**
I don't at all doubt the authenticity of his conversion, but I'm genuinely confused about how Joshua Schooping could have become an Orthodox priest when he has this many problems with it.
I don't know the man and I have *no* doubt that he means every word that he writes, but reading this book I got the impression that he's a Reformed Christian who was wooed by the aesthetic and history of Orthodoxy (he admits as much in Part 1), but couldn't dismiss his Reformed presuppositions. This is further evidenced by the fact that the major segment of the book that puts forth a reasoned argument (chapter 9: Irenaus and Presuppositionalism) consists of Schooping arguing against... his past self.
Apparently, as an Orthodox academic, Schooping developed a theory of "Orthodox Presuppositionalism", which he then dismantles in this book. This is telling. As far as I'm aware, in the 2000ish years of Orthodox theology, nothing resembling presuppositional apologetics (especially the Van Til-ish type Schooping attempts) ever developed. It is, however, a foundational part of Reformed theology. That Schooping was trying to fit Orthodoxy into a foreign (specifically Reformed) conceptual grid is an interesting intellectual exercise, but ultimately fails. The problem comes when Schooping realizes that his theory fails, and extrapolates this to mean that Orthodoxy *itself* fails.
This goes a long way to explain why this book (for the most part) comes across as a rather generic list of problems that Reformed believers have with Orthodoxy, rather than being particularly informed by Schooping's experience as a priest and academic. There's nothing wrong with being a Reformed Christian of course. The problem is that - rather than comparing the Orthodox and Reformed hermeneutical grid and making a reasoned argument for Protestantism - Schooping simply asserts that the Reformed understanding is THE biblical understanding. Thus, for Schooping, anywhere that Orthodoxy disagrees with the Continental Reformed tradition, it therefore disagrees with "the Gospel".
This is a very common feature of Reformed apologetics, but I was hoping for more measured interrogation from someone who was actually Orthodox.
Each of the chapters (which seem to have been blog posts compiled into a book) follows a similar pattern: - Mention Dositheus or the Council of Jerusalem - presuppose Reformed hermeneutics - cite Orthodox documents that disagree with Reformed hermeneutics - express shock - conclude that the Orthodox teaching is "contra the Gospel" due to its disagreement with Reformed theology.
Chapter 1 (exclusivism) simply assumes that exclusivist ecclesiology (or at least Schooping's understanding of it) is wrong because it denies the full Christianity of Protestant believers. It's totally fine to disagree with this (I do too), but Schooping fails to make a clear case here.
Chapter 2 (on icons) simply assumes that any development in doctrine is wrong specifically because it developed. The argument entirely hinges on the Regulative Principle of Worship. This one will work if the reader is already convinced by the RPW, but it fails to make a positive argument in its favor.
Chapter 3 (on John of Damascus) seems to center on the idea that Deuteronomy 4:15 refers only to one specific event, and that the burning bush/pillar of fire/pillar of smoke were "forms" for God. Therefore, because the people saw these "forms", the prohibition on images must exist in perpetuity as an essential command of God. This seems to just be a poor reading of JoD. He deals with this exact argument in his Treatises on The Images. Plus it implies that Moses was wrong to connect Deut 4:15 to the 2nd Commandment. That's... problematic to say the least.
Chapters 4&5 (on Mary) are a particularly low point. The chapter is pretty much just a (very) long list of quotes that Schooping simply assumes are in error and contradict Scripture. He barely engages with the Orthodox understanding of these hymns and prayers at all. On a personal level, I am *very* uncomfortable with some of the language used of Mary, particularly in the Akathists and Palamas. But Schooping totally fails to provide an argument as to *why* I should reject them as unbiblical. He simply presents the quotes as if it were self-evident and moves on. The fact that I'm inclined to agree with Schooping - and yet almost stopped reading here - says a lot about the quality of his argument.
Chapter 6 is just an expansion on Chapter 1, specifically regarding the Synodikon. Schooping uses a dubious source as the basis of his entire argument, and basically just restates that the EOC believes they are the true Church. If they believe they're the true Church, then *of course* they believe all the others are false and therefore lying. This chapter reads like a long excursis on how shocked Schooping is by a not-at-all-secret aspect of Orthodox liturgy.
I'm genuinely not sure what Chapter 7 is doing in this book, let alone separated from the chapters on Mariology. He disagrees with Irenaeus for exactly the same reasons expressed earlier.
Chapter 8 is an attempt to say that Cyprian taught a proto-form of the doctrine of the invisible church. This one presupposes two things. Presupposition 1: obviously the visible church at the time was bad because it was "imperial". Presupposition 2: the church was only unified "administratively", and that each individual church was run like a modern Presbyterian church. This chapter reads like the Presbyterian version of the infamous "Trail of Blood", and was incredibly hard to take seriously. And I'm from a tradition that embraces independent congregations!
I've already addressed Chapter 9 above.
Appendix 1 is actually very well done, and is the source of the second star in my review. Trenham does oversimplify and have a very triumphalist attitude towards "Protestants" in general. Ironically, Schooping has done the exact same thing in the body of this book... oops.
Appendix 2 is Schooping presupposing that harsh asceticism is unbiblical and thus bad. He presents no substantial positive argument, instead just repeating the tactic of Chapters 4&5: drop a bunch of quotes with shocked commentary in between.
Appendix 3 is honestly just silly. The crux of the argument seems to be that everything good in Russian Orthodox spirituality is good because it's actually Protestant. The basis for this argument? St. Tikhon really liked a Lutheran writer and used some of his ideas. Again, I'm a Protestant. This chapter was a bit embarrassing.
This is an incredibly long review, because I was very disappointed by this book. I was really hoping for some incisive arguments against Orthodoxy, because I've struggled to find any Protestant apologists that deal seriously with their EO opponents. Instead what I got was reheated presuppositionalism, the regulative principle, and a very long refutation of an idea that no one even holds ("Orthodox presuppositionalism").
I'll be keeping an eye out for any further releases from Schooping, because he's clearly a very smart guy. He clearly has something to say, and he must have actual arguments, otherwise he wouldn't have re-verted to Protestantism. I just wish they would have been expressed in this book. I can't help but feel like this was rushed out to coincide with the media spotlight that was placed on Schooping after his departure from the EOC. If he takes his time and makes arguments, I'll gladly read what he publishes next.
March 20, 2025
I am currently reading through church history and trying to understand Eastern Orthodoxy. Since the current exodus out of western evangelicalism to Eastern Orthodoxy is relatively new (within the last 10 or so years), there is little in the way of protestant refutations of Eastern Orthodoxy outside of podcasts and videos. So reading this book was high on my priority list, as well as watching numerous interviews with Schooping. Since I am currently in the remedial class trying to get to Eastern Orthodoxy 101, I will not be offering any technical refutations of what Schooping has presented, because I am not at that point yet.
At the start, I believe that Schooping is sincere and believes what he has put forward. I will not stand in judgment against him, as I do not personally know him or have authority over him. But, there are significant red flags with what Schooping has put forward and within the background to this book. First, with the background. Schooping has given his journey in many interviews on YT, if you are unfamiliar, please see those. In his theological journey he joined the Eastern Orthodox church, quickly went to seminary and became a priest. While spending about 12 years there, he left the church and his congregation, and joined one of the many Pentecostal offshoots (CMS) as a pastor, knowing he would not be there long. He has now joined the LCMS as a pastor. In short, because of his shaky foundation, he abandoned two congregations to now be a pastor of a third. While theological journeys are not always straight, he has set a pattern of behavior that is untrustworthy and unstable. Only time will tell if he indeed stays in the LCMS and does not go elsewhere to another congregation. Schooping is put forward as a main pillar against the exodus of our people to Eastern Orthodoxy, when his actions are untrustworthy and unstable. We need to be cautious in putting him forward, as he has not proved that he is indeed not unstable or going hither and yon from congregation to congregation because his theology has changed.
Second, there are a couple things regarding the book itself. This plays out in chapter 8 and Appendix 1. Regarding chapter 8, throughout the book Schooping's arguments usually run like this: Explains topic "x", usually with citations, says they are wrong and against scripture; never telling us why it is wrong. The problem with this is that Schooping shows you something, tells you it's wrong and wins reformed brownie points for his arguments. This is evident with his treatment with Saint Cyprian. Most of this section is telling you that the Eastern churches use this as a polemic about unity. But they do it out of context, in reality Saint Cyprian actually means this other thing. He does so without dealing with what Saint Cyprian says, but only tells us what he says and what he means without textual context. This is a red flag. If he is doing this, at a simple level, the rest of his arguments come into question. I read widely and deeply in philosophy, history, and theology. Schooping's level of analysis and argumentation is lazy and smells of manipulation, which I see far too often.
Likewise, on the level of understanding of Orthodox theology that I do possess, I can easily see that Schooping is not dealing honestly with Eastern Orthodoxy, which puzzles me. As an example, both in this written form and his video content, he continually says "this one or two patristic fathers said X, so therefore the Eastern Orthodox view of the Consensus of the Fathers is false". This argument is manipulative, and does not contain a drop of basic common sense. When dealing with the Consensus of the Fathers, it is a consensus, which means there will always be Fathers that have different positions; but on that part, is not in line with the overall Consensus. This happens everywhere and in every denomination and church group. You cannot logically dismantle a consensus on a few instances of Fathers holding differing views on certain subjects, unless those are actually so prevalent that they challenge the overall consensus. This type of argumentation, which is prominent in Schooping's videos and this book, is dishonest. To be honest, as a layman in a protestant church, I should not have to write something like this on a book whose author is clearly an intelligent man.
The last section that I will deal with is in Appendix 1, over Schooping's review of Father Josiah's book Rock and Sand. The reason why I find this portion good to write about is because this week I have finished Rock and Sand, so it is fresh on my mind. Schooping's review is tragic, it should never have been written. He argues from the standpoint as someone who is VERY reformed. In case this is missed on you, he is now a Lutheran pastor. Reformed theology and Lutheran Theology broadly do not mix. So this review, a part of being bad, is confusing to where Schooping is really at. The reason why I say this review is bad, is because on the majority, Father Josiah is very accurate with the issues in the protestant world. As someone who is currently protestant, I largely agree with Father Josiah. While there are a few places where Father Josiah is not fully correct, on the majority he is extremely accurate. Schooping seems to project what he is doing to Father Josiah in his conclusion. Meaning, he claims Father Josiah is either "uninformed, misinformed, or purposely misleading for the sake of his rhetorical aim to grow the Orthodox Church." Father Josiah is a prominent EO content creator, who is an apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy. This is baked into the cake, when you read Father Josiah's book, you ought to know this. But, his arguments are largely accurate and ring true. It seems Schooping is again here manipulating his audience, by projecting his actions onto someone else.
In conclusion, while there are aspects I cannot deal with since I don't have a full formed understanding of EO theology, the aspects I can deal with are not good arguments. While I would be happy to purchase another book by Schooling on Eastern Orthodoxy and review it, I cannot give credence to someone who argues and acts the way he does, just because he's now on our team. We should be very hesitant to platform Schooping. But, knowing the state of the protestant church, he will be given credence at every turn.
At the start, I believe that Schooping is sincere and believes what he has put forward. I will not stand in judgment against him, as I do not personally know him or have authority over him. But, there are significant red flags with what Schooping has put forward and within the background to this book. First, with the background. Schooping has given his journey in many interviews on YT, if you are unfamiliar, please see those. In his theological journey he joined the Eastern Orthodox church, quickly went to seminary and became a priest. While spending about 12 years there, he left the church and his congregation, and joined one of the many Pentecostal offshoots (CMS) as a pastor, knowing he would not be there long. He has now joined the LCMS as a pastor. In short, because of his shaky foundation, he abandoned two congregations to now be a pastor of a third. While theological journeys are not always straight, he has set a pattern of behavior that is untrustworthy and unstable. Only time will tell if he indeed stays in the LCMS and does not go elsewhere to another congregation. Schooping is put forward as a main pillar against the exodus of our people to Eastern Orthodoxy, when his actions are untrustworthy and unstable. We need to be cautious in putting him forward, as he has not proved that he is indeed not unstable or going hither and yon from congregation to congregation because his theology has changed.
Second, there are a couple things regarding the book itself. This plays out in chapter 8 and Appendix 1. Regarding chapter 8, throughout the book Schooping's arguments usually run like this: Explains topic "x", usually with citations, says they are wrong and against scripture; never telling us why it is wrong. The problem with this is that Schooping shows you something, tells you it's wrong and wins reformed brownie points for his arguments. This is evident with his treatment with Saint Cyprian. Most of this section is telling you that the Eastern churches use this as a polemic about unity. But they do it out of context, in reality Saint Cyprian actually means this other thing. He does so without dealing with what Saint Cyprian says, but only tells us what he says and what he means without textual context. This is a red flag. If he is doing this, at a simple level, the rest of his arguments come into question. I read widely and deeply in philosophy, history, and theology. Schooping's level of analysis and argumentation is lazy and smells of manipulation, which I see far too often.
Likewise, on the level of understanding of Orthodox theology that I do possess, I can easily see that Schooping is not dealing honestly with Eastern Orthodoxy, which puzzles me. As an example, both in this written form and his video content, he continually says "this one or two patristic fathers said X, so therefore the Eastern Orthodox view of the Consensus of the Fathers is false". This argument is manipulative, and does not contain a drop of basic common sense. When dealing with the Consensus of the Fathers, it is a consensus, which means there will always be Fathers that have different positions; but on that part, is not in line with the overall Consensus. This happens everywhere and in every denomination and church group. You cannot logically dismantle a consensus on a few instances of Fathers holding differing views on certain subjects, unless those are actually so prevalent that they challenge the overall consensus. This type of argumentation, which is prominent in Schooping's videos and this book, is dishonest. To be honest, as a layman in a protestant church, I should not have to write something like this on a book whose author is clearly an intelligent man.
The last section that I will deal with is in Appendix 1, over Schooping's review of Father Josiah's book Rock and Sand. The reason why I find this portion good to write about is because this week I have finished Rock and Sand, so it is fresh on my mind. Schooping's review is tragic, it should never have been written. He argues from the standpoint as someone who is VERY reformed. In case this is missed on you, he is now a Lutheran pastor. Reformed theology and Lutheran Theology broadly do not mix. So this review, a part of being bad, is confusing to where Schooping is really at. The reason why I say this review is bad, is because on the majority, Father Josiah is very accurate with the issues in the protestant world. As someone who is currently protestant, I largely agree with Father Josiah. While there are a few places where Father Josiah is not fully correct, on the majority he is extremely accurate. Schooping seems to project what he is doing to Father Josiah in his conclusion. Meaning, he claims Father Josiah is either "uninformed, misinformed, or purposely misleading for the sake of his rhetorical aim to grow the Orthodox Church." Father Josiah is a prominent EO content creator, who is an apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy. This is baked into the cake, when you read Father Josiah's book, you ought to know this. But, his arguments are largely accurate and ring true. It seems Schooping is again here manipulating his audience, by projecting his actions onto someone else.
In conclusion, while there are aspects I cannot deal with since I don't have a full formed understanding of EO theology, the aspects I can deal with are not good arguments. While I would be happy to purchase another book by Schooling on Eastern Orthodoxy and review it, I cannot give credence to someone who argues and acts the way he does, just because he's now on our team. We should be very hesitant to platform Schooping. But, knowing the state of the protestant church, he will be given credence at every turn.
March 11, 2025
This book!
A review of Joshua Schooping’s Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood
This isn’t a book review that I ever wanted to write. I am no theologian, and I actually have no desire to be one. Basically, I’m a writer of books with many bad words in them.
Nonetheless, I write this for my precious daughters and my sometimes-best friend husband because I’d jump into a pool of sharks for him. He already mocked this metaphor, even though we seriously once had the following conversation in the kitchen of our first home:
Me: “I’m the type of person who would see a shark coming and I’d just wait to die. I’d give up.”
Sometimes-Best Friend: “No, you wouldn’t. You’d fight the shark.”
I instinctively knew that he was right.
Publicly reviewing this book: Here goes my writing career…
Allow me to start with the Old Testament story of Balaam’s ass, a favorite of ours. You see, we regularly refer to our dog, Snickers, as Balaam’s Ass—because this dog is so stubborn. Snickers, who has guest appearances in two of my books-with-bad-words, is your classic good mutt, EXCEPT HE’S TOTALLY SPECIAL AND THE BEST DOG IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. I love this dog. I love him so much. Snickers is Balaam’s ass, and he’s the best.
However, Snickers does regularly demonstrate the pecking order around here by showcasing the fact that the Sometimes-Best Friend is his favorite (I am, though, his second favorite). Snickers, despite favoritism, occasionally just flat-out refuses to move for either of us. We’ll be walking along, and he’ll put on the brakes.
In the Bible, Balaam’s ass does the same thing. Balaam is supposed to curse God’s people. He’s got the power to do this sort of thing. He’s on his way to go curse them. Balaam’s riding down the road on his beloved ass. HOWEVER, Balaam’s ass sees something Balaam just doesn’t. And he puts on the breaks. He refuses! Balaam gets a little nasty. But the ass ain’t going anywhere!
Why?
The ass sees the Angel of the Lord, and Balaam’s not supposed to go curse the people—so Balaam needs a bit of a wakeup call. And the ass is going to do it!
Snickers is Balaam’s ass.
And here’s my story. I didn’t want to say this aloud, but maybe there’s no other way. My Sometimes Best-Friend is flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy, which led me to Gavin Ortlund (I admire your kindness, dude) and Joshua Schooping (you’re a brainiac, friend). I am not loving this dip into Eastern Orthodoxy AT ALL. First, it sucks. Second, I’m not a kind person like Ortland. Third, I’m not smart like the Schooping guy. I repeat: I’m just a writer of book with bad words. But we’re talking my Sometimes-Best Friend!!!!!!
My Sometimes-Best Friend and I have religiously walked Snickers every morning for years. This Eastern Orthodoxy thing really hurts me. I said, this one morning recently, “I’m not going on a walk.”
Guess what happened.
Snickers, despite his preference for my Sometimes-Best Friend, came over to me—and flat-out refused to go on this walk! He sat down by me and started licking me and he was all affectionate and he wouldn’t leave me!
I don’t know if my Sometimes-Best Friend really contemplated this, but I was thinking it was pretty obvious that this dog was trying to tell us something.
Little sidenote: Snickers acting as Balaam’s ass is the closest encounter I’ve had with mysticism and I famously eschew all hints of mysticism—whereas my Sometimes-Best Friend craves it/loves it. Basically, you light the incense around me and I’m, like, PHEW!!! THIS IS AGGRAVATING MY ASTHMA! I CAN’T BREATHE.
But Snickers is a sign.
Finally, the book: Joshua Schooping’s Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood.
This book is a lifesaver, and I appreciate it; I genuinely do. I truly had to take a crash course on Eastern Orthodoxy, out-pacing my Sometimes-Best Friend (who typically ain’t no dummy), reading up on a topic that really has not interested me terribly. I really am not a theologian. I truly have no interest in being one. I like to watch TV, read literary fiction, obsess over my kids, and write books with bad words. I did grow up going to Christian schools, so I do have this smattering of church history and a teeny-tiny knowledge of Protestantism and Reformed Theology. Like, I’m Reformed, I get it, and I want to watch The Office. I do think that my understanding of Protestantism was a little more present in my life than I originally thought. I’m thankful for that.
Schooping’s book, along with Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham and What It Means To Be Protestant by Gavin Ortland plus a host of videos including two hours of Ortlund with Schooping, served as a fine introduction. This book was so very helpful.
It's tempting to do a play-by-play, and give every detail about what I read. I’ll resist. I guess I might say that two main things stick out to me, as I consider Eastern Orthodoxy; then, there are a few deductions that follow from those main things!
First, Eastern Orthodoxy is circular, self-propagating.
Second—and I’m drawing on multiple sources—Eastern Orthodoxy is ahistorical.
Reader, I am begging you to give me the time of day and read on if you are religiously-inclined. Passersby, I write rather good books with bad words. Check me out.
Easter Orthodoxy is circular, self-propagating. Basically, since the Church is the Big Authority and whatever they say goes, it’s like this: “. . . now if the Church becomes a precondition for knowledge, then the Church becomes a viciously circular precondition for its own self-knowledge, and hence self-attesting, self-justifying, and finally irreformable . . .” (Schooping 161). Think of it this way. It’s like a mom saying, “It’s true because I said it’s true.” I’ve literally confronted this already in my real-life encounters. An Eastern Orthodox convert can simply defer to the Church—and stop thinking! Whatever the Church says goes!
My response:
1. This is mind-boggling, mind-numbing, and I’m a freakin’ academic when I’m not writing my books with bad words (I didn’t mention this part; I’m a prof—stop laughing!) so, like, I Am Deeply Deeply Deeply Offended by the very suggestion that I shouldn’t use my God-given brain to think for myself. OH DEAR LORD, I AM OFFENDED AND HURT.
2. Thank God I’m a Protestant.
Eastern Orthodoxy is ahistorical. Immune from MAJOR historical/cultural shifts like the Enlightenment and the Reformation, it’s fair to literally call Eastern Orthodoxy Byzantian Christianity. Like, we’re talking the Middle Ages. We’re talking Feudalism! (Feudalism actually begins to make a ton of sense as one observes the way multiple bishops serve as mini-popes across different ethnic clans with undoubtedly rich histories. Like, who wouldn’t prefer baklava at the church potluck over our lackluster whitebread offerings?) This is important stuff. Also, intriguing, is that Eastern Orthodoxy LOVES to point out how divided Protestants are, while they have continuity going since the apostolic age—Schooping discuses this super well. BUT REMEMBER THIS: THEY LOVE TO POINT OUT DENOMINATIONALISM!!
Interestingly, to me, I see a hint of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination at work in my life as I’m confronted with Eastern Orthodoxy IN MY FAMILY! Though Eastern Orthodoxy is proudly ahistoric, my dip into it is happening on the heels of Trump throwing Zelensky out of the White House, and I just finished reading Alexei Navalny’s memoir—plus, as it should happen, I’m trying to make it through Tolstoy’s War & Peace (not fun). I cannot escape.
My response:
1. The combo of ahistorical and intellectually-circularity is plain dangerous.
2. I say it again: The combo of ahistorical and intellectually-circularity is plain dangerous.
And, then, some secondary ideas that aren’t really secondary at all. Get ready.
Eastern Orthodoxy is performative. I just can’t get over it. I guess you gotta see it, hear it. Man, such fine performances! After one of those ceremonial, stand-on-your-feet, mood-ring gesticulations, I’D BE DYING FOR SNICKERS TO GET THE ZOOMIES WHILE I LISTEN TO SOME LED ZEPPELIN. All I can say is that I really hate pretense. All of my friends are a little weird, delightfully real, and my Sometimes-Best Friend has a history of weird and real.
Eastern Orthodoxy is heretical in four areas. These areas are as follows: church authority, declaring anathema on those outside of the church, the use of icons, and the glorification of Mary.
I will grant that some might think I’m throwing around the word heresy too lightly.
I will stick to my guns.
I will insist that Eastern Orthodoxy holds heretical beliefs that are simply not in alignment with the Bible. So, like, if you don’t believe in the Bible, you’ve got nothing to worry about!
Heresy.
Schooping does a great job on showing both the claims of church authority and the inconsistencies in church authority. Heresy. I can’t quote everything he says, but I appreciated it.
Declaring anathema on those outside of the church. Heresy. I find this bitterly offensive. My Sometimes-Best Friend says it’s not true (he really doesn’t want to send his wife and kids to hell). The mini-pope in the local Eastern Orthodox church does a fine job in subterfuge, coupled with a claim not to think about it.
This is literally like pre-Reformation Europe, when the people didn’t have access to the Bible for themselves, and they just had to accept the Church’s interpretation. They didn’t have to be bothered to think! SUBTERFUGE!!!!!!!
Yeah, I’m pissed off!
So much subterfuge.
Declaring anathema is discussed in numerous texts which are given infallible church authority. We are talking about, Christians, sending Mr. Rogers, Johnny Cash, Tim Keller, and your Bible-thumper grandma to hell. DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU THAT THIS ISN’T TRUE. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF IN SOME OF THESE TEXTS (just a selection):
Confession of Dositheus, Decree 10 of the Visible Church
Work of Protopresbyter Pomazansky
St. Theophan the Recluse
Synodikon of Orthodoxy – read yearly, supposedly
See Seventh Ecumenical Council
Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book (composed by Fr. Vasile Mihai)
I don’t know.
The combo of intellectual vacuity combined with anathema ON MY KIDS combined with performative pretense is like a freaking church spitting in my face.
The Use of Icons. I’ll leave it to Schooping. Unbiblical.
Plus, it’s bad art.
Have you ever seen Marc Chagall’s White Crucifixion? I seriously think it’s an amazing work of art, and it makes me think of Jesus about a gazillion degrees more intensely than any one of those absurdly empty icons, which are Medieval and artistically-flat—and I will not kiss Chagall’s painting or curtsey before it but I think it is simply ravishing and Marc Chagall was a Jewish guy, by the way!
Seriously, Schooping does a great job with icons.
The glorification of Mary. I defer to Schooping again. However, I definitely get the Subterfuge Vibe again. It’s like We-Don’t-Worship-Her-But-We-Do. Simply put, it’s not Biblical.
This is my book review. My crash course into Eastern Orthodoxy, instigated by my beloved Sometimes-Best Friend, is still happening. I’m still trying to figure out stuff.
I think, for instance, I need to do some serious thinking about the Lord’s Supper. I’m not doubting Protestantism; I’m doubting that I understand fully. The good news about me having misunderstood the sacrament for some forty-fifty years is that no Protestant is declaring me anathema so I still get to be a Christian! Woo-hoo!
Ultimately, I think one must ask what it means “to search,” “to explore.” I was reading Schooping’s Mary stuff and he related it to this desire for a state of holiness, “the silence of the mind.” I can imagine that’s very appealing to my Sometimes-Best Friend who has a busy mind. But what does it mean to be investigating worldviews? Is it immersive? Is it scholarly? Do you speak to insiders? Do you speak to outsiders? Whom do you trust? What is repentance? What is accountability?
I do want to thank a few people who have talked me off my ledge. Vermon has tried hard. Thank you. Susan, who talked me down from going full-fledged ballistic. My daughter did too—because she loves her dad.
Now go listen to the Kids Without Horses soundtrack and get on your knees and weep: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7AW...
A review of Joshua Schooping’s Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood
This isn’t a book review that I ever wanted to write. I am no theologian, and I actually have no desire to be one. Basically, I’m a writer of books with many bad words in them.
Nonetheless, I write this for my precious daughters and my sometimes-best friend husband because I’d jump into a pool of sharks for him. He already mocked this metaphor, even though we seriously once had the following conversation in the kitchen of our first home:
Me: “I’m the type of person who would see a shark coming and I’d just wait to die. I’d give up.”
Sometimes-Best Friend: “No, you wouldn’t. You’d fight the shark.”
I instinctively knew that he was right.
Publicly reviewing this book: Here goes my writing career…
Allow me to start with the Old Testament story of Balaam’s ass, a favorite of ours. You see, we regularly refer to our dog, Snickers, as Balaam’s Ass—because this dog is so stubborn. Snickers, who has guest appearances in two of my books-with-bad-words, is your classic good mutt, EXCEPT HE’S TOTALLY SPECIAL AND THE BEST DOG IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. I love this dog. I love him so much. Snickers is Balaam’s ass, and he’s the best.
However, Snickers does regularly demonstrate the pecking order around here by showcasing the fact that the Sometimes-Best Friend is his favorite (I am, though, his second favorite). Snickers, despite favoritism, occasionally just flat-out refuses to move for either of us. We’ll be walking along, and he’ll put on the brakes.
In the Bible, Balaam’s ass does the same thing. Balaam is supposed to curse God’s people. He’s got the power to do this sort of thing. He’s on his way to go curse them. Balaam’s riding down the road on his beloved ass. HOWEVER, Balaam’s ass sees something Balaam just doesn’t. And he puts on the breaks. He refuses! Balaam gets a little nasty. But the ass ain’t going anywhere!
Why?
The ass sees the Angel of the Lord, and Balaam’s not supposed to go curse the people—so Balaam needs a bit of a wakeup call. And the ass is going to do it!
Snickers is Balaam’s ass.
And here’s my story. I didn’t want to say this aloud, but maybe there’s no other way. My Sometimes Best-Friend is flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy, which led me to Gavin Ortlund (I admire your kindness, dude) and Joshua Schooping (you’re a brainiac, friend). I am not loving this dip into Eastern Orthodoxy AT ALL. First, it sucks. Second, I’m not a kind person like Ortland. Third, I’m not smart like the Schooping guy. I repeat: I’m just a writer of book with bad words. But we’re talking my Sometimes-Best Friend!!!!!!
My Sometimes-Best Friend and I have religiously walked Snickers every morning for years. This Eastern Orthodoxy thing really hurts me. I said, this one morning recently, “I’m not going on a walk.”
Guess what happened.
Snickers, despite his preference for my Sometimes-Best Friend, came over to me—and flat-out refused to go on this walk! He sat down by me and started licking me and he was all affectionate and he wouldn’t leave me!
I don’t know if my Sometimes-Best Friend really contemplated this, but I was thinking it was pretty obvious that this dog was trying to tell us something.
Little sidenote: Snickers acting as Balaam’s ass is the closest encounter I’ve had with mysticism and I famously eschew all hints of mysticism—whereas my Sometimes-Best Friend craves it/loves it. Basically, you light the incense around me and I’m, like, PHEW!!! THIS IS AGGRAVATING MY ASTHMA! I CAN’T BREATHE.
But Snickers is a sign.
Finally, the book: Joshua Schooping’s Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood.
This book is a lifesaver, and I appreciate it; I genuinely do. I truly had to take a crash course on Eastern Orthodoxy, out-pacing my Sometimes-Best Friend (who typically ain’t no dummy), reading up on a topic that really has not interested me terribly. I really am not a theologian. I truly have no interest in being one. I like to watch TV, read literary fiction, obsess over my kids, and write books with bad words. I did grow up going to Christian schools, so I do have this smattering of church history and a teeny-tiny knowledge of Protestantism and Reformed Theology. Like, I’m Reformed, I get it, and I want to watch The Office. I do think that my understanding of Protestantism was a little more present in my life than I originally thought. I’m thankful for that.
Schooping’s book, along with Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Robert Letham and What It Means To Be Protestant by Gavin Ortland plus a host of videos including two hours of Ortlund with Schooping, served as a fine introduction. This book was so very helpful.
It's tempting to do a play-by-play, and give every detail about what I read. I’ll resist. I guess I might say that two main things stick out to me, as I consider Eastern Orthodoxy; then, there are a few deductions that follow from those main things!
First, Eastern Orthodoxy is circular, self-propagating.
Second—and I’m drawing on multiple sources—Eastern Orthodoxy is ahistorical.
Reader, I am begging you to give me the time of day and read on if you are religiously-inclined. Passersby, I write rather good books with bad words. Check me out.
Easter Orthodoxy is circular, self-propagating. Basically, since the Church is the Big Authority and whatever they say goes, it’s like this: “. . . now if the Church becomes a precondition for knowledge, then the Church becomes a viciously circular precondition for its own self-knowledge, and hence self-attesting, self-justifying, and finally irreformable . . .” (Schooping 161). Think of it this way. It’s like a mom saying, “It’s true because I said it’s true.” I’ve literally confronted this already in my real-life encounters. An Eastern Orthodox convert can simply defer to the Church—and stop thinking! Whatever the Church says goes!
My response:
1. This is mind-boggling, mind-numbing, and I’m a freakin’ academic when I’m not writing my books with bad words (I didn’t mention this part; I’m a prof—stop laughing!) so, like, I Am Deeply Deeply Deeply Offended by the very suggestion that I shouldn’t use my God-given brain to think for myself. OH DEAR LORD, I AM OFFENDED AND HURT.
2. Thank God I’m a Protestant.
Eastern Orthodoxy is ahistorical. Immune from MAJOR historical/cultural shifts like the Enlightenment and the Reformation, it’s fair to literally call Eastern Orthodoxy Byzantian Christianity. Like, we’re talking the Middle Ages. We’re talking Feudalism! (Feudalism actually begins to make a ton of sense as one observes the way multiple bishops serve as mini-popes across different ethnic clans with undoubtedly rich histories. Like, who wouldn’t prefer baklava at the church potluck over our lackluster whitebread offerings?) This is important stuff. Also, intriguing, is that Eastern Orthodoxy LOVES to point out how divided Protestants are, while they have continuity going since the apostolic age—Schooping discuses this super well. BUT REMEMBER THIS: THEY LOVE TO POINT OUT DENOMINATIONALISM!!
Interestingly, to me, I see a hint of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination at work in my life as I’m confronted with Eastern Orthodoxy IN MY FAMILY! Though Eastern Orthodoxy is proudly ahistoric, my dip into it is happening on the heels of Trump throwing Zelensky out of the White House, and I just finished reading Alexei Navalny’s memoir—plus, as it should happen, I’m trying to make it through Tolstoy’s War & Peace (not fun). I cannot escape.
My response:
1. The combo of ahistorical and intellectually-circularity is plain dangerous.
2. I say it again: The combo of ahistorical and intellectually-circularity is plain dangerous.
And, then, some secondary ideas that aren’t really secondary at all. Get ready.
Eastern Orthodoxy is performative. I just can’t get over it. I guess you gotta see it, hear it. Man, such fine performances! After one of those ceremonial, stand-on-your-feet, mood-ring gesticulations, I’D BE DYING FOR SNICKERS TO GET THE ZOOMIES WHILE I LISTEN TO SOME LED ZEPPELIN. All I can say is that I really hate pretense. All of my friends are a little weird, delightfully real, and my Sometimes-Best Friend has a history of weird and real.
Eastern Orthodoxy is heretical in four areas. These areas are as follows: church authority, declaring anathema on those outside of the church, the use of icons, and the glorification of Mary.
I will grant that some might think I’m throwing around the word heresy too lightly.
I will stick to my guns.
I will insist that Eastern Orthodoxy holds heretical beliefs that are simply not in alignment with the Bible. So, like, if you don’t believe in the Bible, you’ve got nothing to worry about!
Heresy.
Schooping does a great job on showing both the claims of church authority and the inconsistencies in church authority. Heresy. I can’t quote everything he says, but I appreciated it.
Declaring anathema on those outside of the church. Heresy. I find this bitterly offensive. My Sometimes-Best Friend says it’s not true (he really doesn’t want to send his wife and kids to hell). The mini-pope in the local Eastern Orthodox church does a fine job in subterfuge, coupled with a claim not to think about it.
This is literally like pre-Reformation Europe, when the people didn’t have access to the Bible for themselves, and they just had to accept the Church’s interpretation. They didn’t have to be bothered to think! SUBTERFUGE!!!!!!!
Yeah, I’m pissed off!
So much subterfuge.
Declaring anathema is discussed in numerous texts which are given infallible church authority. We are talking about, Christians, sending Mr. Rogers, Johnny Cash, Tim Keller, and your Bible-thumper grandma to hell. DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU THAT THIS ISN’T TRUE. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF IN SOME OF THESE TEXTS (just a selection):
Confession of Dositheus, Decree 10 of the Visible Church
Work of Protopresbyter Pomazansky
St. Theophan the Recluse
Synodikon of Orthodoxy – read yearly, supposedly
See Seventh Ecumenical Council
Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book (composed by Fr. Vasile Mihai)
I don’t know.
The combo of intellectual vacuity combined with anathema ON MY KIDS combined with performative pretense is like a freaking church spitting in my face.
The Use of Icons. I’ll leave it to Schooping. Unbiblical.
Plus, it’s bad art.
Have you ever seen Marc Chagall’s White Crucifixion? I seriously think it’s an amazing work of art, and it makes me think of Jesus about a gazillion degrees more intensely than any one of those absurdly empty icons, which are Medieval and artistically-flat—and I will not kiss Chagall’s painting or curtsey before it but I think it is simply ravishing and Marc Chagall was a Jewish guy, by the way!
Seriously, Schooping does a great job with icons.
The glorification of Mary. I defer to Schooping again. However, I definitely get the Subterfuge Vibe again. It’s like We-Don’t-Worship-Her-But-We-Do. Simply put, it’s not Biblical.
This is my book review. My crash course into Eastern Orthodoxy, instigated by my beloved Sometimes-Best Friend, is still happening. I’m still trying to figure out stuff.
I think, for instance, I need to do some serious thinking about the Lord’s Supper. I’m not doubting Protestantism; I’m doubting that I understand fully. The good news about me having misunderstood the sacrament for some forty-fifty years is that no Protestant is declaring me anathema so I still get to be a Christian! Woo-hoo!
Ultimately, I think one must ask what it means “to search,” “to explore.” I was reading Schooping’s Mary stuff and he related it to this desire for a state of holiness, “the silence of the mind.” I can imagine that’s very appealing to my Sometimes-Best Friend who has a busy mind. But what does it mean to be investigating worldviews? Is it immersive? Is it scholarly? Do you speak to insiders? Do you speak to outsiders? Whom do you trust? What is repentance? What is accountability?
I do want to thank a few people who have talked me off my ledge. Vermon has tried hard. Thank you. Susan, who talked me down from going full-fledged ballistic. My daughter did too—because she loves her dad.
Now go listen to the Kids Without Horses soundtrack and get on your knees and weep: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7AW...
December 24, 2023
I actually rather enjoyed this book. I had a few apologetically-oriented questions about the Eastern Orthodox church I was not able to answer as a Protestant, and Schooping helped me greatly in finding those answers!
Schooping writes as an academic with numerous well-marked citations and quotes from original sources and respected scholars, but speaks strongly and critically against the Eastern Orthdox Church. He spends considerable time exposing the numerous strawmen the EOC use to "defeat" Protestant critics while bringing up enough problems within the Eastern Orthodox Church to give a person considering the conversion serious pause.
If you're a Protestant looking eastward and considering converting to Eastern Orthdoxy or know someone who is, this book is quite useful. His response against Josiah Trenham's popular book "Rock and Sand" was also greatly valuable.
Schooping writes as an academic with numerous well-marked citations and quotes from original sources and respected scholars, but speaks strongly and critically against the Eastern Orthdox Church. He spends considerable time exposing the numerous strawmen the EOC use to "defeat" Protestant critics while bringing up enough problems within the Eastern Orthodox Church to give a person considering the conversion serious pause.
If you're a Protestant looking eastward and considering converting to Eastern Orthdoxy or know someone who is, this book is quite useful. His response against Josiah Trenham's popular book "Rock and Sand" was also greatly valuable.
April 2, 2024
I would encourage you to read Rock and Sand first to better understand this book. Informative.
January 29, 2024
Who this book is for:
Obviously, it is for those who are either in Eastern Orthodoxy or interested in Eastern Orthodoxy.
Excellent book; it reflects the reasons I, while looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, decided to not join it.
The issues can be summed up thus:
1) Too exclusivist.
2) Its iconodulia goes too far.
3) Its Mariology goes too far.
Concerning #1: From the Council of Jersualem in the 17th century, to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, it is demonstrated that the popular line, "We know where the Church is; we do not know where It isn't." is flatly untrue on a dogmatic level (thankfully, it is more true on a popular level).
Concerning #2: I have always had issues with Nicaea II (the 7th so-called Ecumenical Council), and Fr Schooping points to the forced iconodulia as one of the largest examples of the Eastern stance on Icons (technically the Roman stance as well, but the practice is clearly not as strong in the West).
Concerning #3: One of my major issues with Eastern Orthodoxy was some of the prayers and declarations I would hear while at Divine Liturgy ("Most Holy Theotokos; save us!" is the most obvious example). However, Fr Schooping pointed out some other prayers that I did not know about: a prayer book known as "The Mother of Light" includes soteriological language attributed to the Blessed Virgin (her forgiving us of our sins, being our propitiation, etc), and Theodore the Studite's "A Canon to the All-Holy Theotokos" is outright blasphemous, in that it has Jesus refusing to forgive a repentant sinner multiple times (something like six or seven times), despite the Blessed Virgin asking Jesus to forgive him (Jesus even tells His Mother to go away and stop asking, and she continues to ask! Reminds me of the judge in Luke 18, meant to CONTRAST God from him!). At the very end, she convinces Jesus to forgive him, only because she asks to "forgive him through me."
There are other sections, too (one on St Cyprian's understanding of unity, and one on St Irenaeus's understanding of Eve and the Blessed Virgin; also, one on Fr Josiah's book, Rock and Sand), and they are likewise good.
Critiques:
One of my issues is that the editing of the book seems poorly done; that is, on the typo-level.
He will often start topics with a presumption that the reader is at a particular level of knowledge concerning it (one example being St Cyprian's precise understanding of the Unity of the Church; I felt he could have explained it more fully).
At some points I think Fr Schooping gets a little too presumptive in his understandings of, for instance, certain lines in the various Marian prayers. I agreed with his assessment of probably about 75-90% of them, roughly speaking.
At some points he gets a tad too "anti-Church-as-Institution", and moves a bit towards the "blame Constantine/Theodosius" mindset.
I also believe that his citations were at times lacking.
Other than that, there is not much else I can critique about the book.
The book is solid, and I agree with most of it. If you are Eastern Orthodox, or looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, I highly recommend this book.
Obviously, it is for those who are either in Eastern Orthodoxy or interested in Eastern Orthodoxy.
Excellent book; it reflects the reasons I, while looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, decided to not join it.
The issues can be summed up thus:
1) Too exclusivist.
2) Its iconodulia goes too far.
3) Its Mariology goes too far.
Concerning #1: From the Council of Jersualem in the 17th century, to the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, it is demonstrated that the popular line, "We know where the Church is; we do not know where It isn't." is flatly untrue on a dogmatic level (thankfully, it is more true on a popular level).
Concerning #2: I have always had issues with Nicaea II (the 7th so-called Ecumenical Council), and Fr Schooping points to the forced iconodulia as one of the largest examples of the Eastern stance on Icons (technically the Roman stance as well, but the practice is clearly not as strong in the West).
Concerning #3: One of my major issues with Eastern Orthodoxy was some of the prayers and declarations I would hear while at Divine Liturgy ("Most Holy Theotokos; save us!" is the most obvious example). However, Fr Schooping pointed out some other prayers that I did not know about: a prayer book known as "The Mother of Light" includes soteriological language attributed to the Blessed Virgin (her forgiving us of our sins, being our propitiation, etc), and Theodore the Studite's "A Canon to the All-Holy Theotokos" is outright blasphemous, in that it has Jesus refusing to forgive a repentant sinner multiple times (something like six or seven times), despite the Blessed Virgin asking Jesus to forgive him (Jesus even tells His Mother to go away and stop asking, and she continues to ask! Reminds me of the judge in Luke 18, meant to CONTRAST God from him!). At the very end, she convinces Jesus to forgive him, only because she asks to "forgive him through me."
There are other sections, too (one on St Cyprian's understanding of unity, and one on St Irenaeus's understanding of Eve and the Blessed Virgin; also, one on Fr Josiah's book, Rock and Sand), and they are likewise good.
Critiques:
One of my issues is that the editing of the book seems poorly done; that is, on the typo-level.
He will often start topics with a presumption that the reader is at a particular level of knowledge concerning it (one example being St Cyprian's precise understanding of the Unity of the Church; I felt he could have explained it more fully).
At some points I think Fr Schooping gets a little too presumptive in his understandings of, for instance, certain lines in the various Marian prayers. I agreed with his assessment of probably about 75-90% of them, roughly speaking.
At some points he gets a tad too "anti-Church-as-Institution", and moves a bit towards the "blame Constantine/Theodosius" mindset.
I also believe that his citations were at times lacking.
Other than that, there is not much else I can critique about the book.
The book is solid, and I agree with most of it. If you are Eastern Orthodox, or looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, I highly recommend this book.
September 5, 2025
Joshua Schooping's "Disillusioned” is a remarkable work of theological reflection that stands out for its intellectual honesty and nuanced understanding of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Unlike many conversion narratives that can feel like validation exercises, Schooping writes primarily for those within or seriously considering Eastern Orthodoxy, bringing the credibility of someone who didn't just dabble but was fully committed—completing seminary at one of America's most prominent Orthodox institutions and serving as a priest for half a decade. Remarkable that his move toward Protestantism was influenced by reading the Church Fathers. It reminds me of C.S. Lewis quibbing that the more Medieval he becomes, the more Protestant he becomes.
His analysis of ecclesiology is great, arguing that Protestantism, despite common accusations, is actually less schismatic than Eastern Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism) because it doesn't rely exclusively on a visible church. His examination of Orthodox Marian theology is also fairly eye-opening. Some of the quotes from the Eastern Orthodox canon, in my opinion, are quite blasphemous, some even calling her the “propitiation of our sins” without any mention of Christ. The discussion of icons and their historical development provides valuable insight into how practices evolved through political rather than purely theological processes.
Perhaps most importantly, Schooping addresses the epistemological circularity of the Eastern (and Roman) church—the way the Church becomes both the source and validator of its own authority, creating what he identifies as an "irreformable" system prone to confirmation bias. His critique is never hyperbolic or dismissive; instead, it demonstrates a deep understanding of both traditions that someone like Fr. Trenham (whose "Rock and Sand" Schooping expertly reviews in the appendix) simply doesn't possess when writing about Protestantism.
For anyone wrestling with questions about church authority, tradition, and the nature of Christian unity, this book offers invaluable insights from someone who has genuinely walked both paths.
His analysis of ecclesiology is great, arguing that Protestantism, despite common accusations, is actually less schismatic than Eastern Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism) because it doesn't rely exclusively on a visible church. His examination of Orthodox Marian theology is also fairly eye-opening. Some of the quotes from the Eastern Orthodox canon, in my opinion, are quite blasphemous, some even calling her the “propitiation of our sins” without any mention of Christ. The discussion of icons and their historical development provides valuable insight into how practices evolved through political rather than purely theological processes.
Perhaps most importantly, Schooping addresses the epistemological circularity of the Eastern (and Roman) church—the way the Church becomes both the source and validator of its own authority, creating what he identifies as an "irreformable" system prone to confirmation bias. His critique is never hyperbolic or dismissive; instead, it demonstrates a deep understanding of both traditions that someone like Fr. Trenham (whose "Rock and Sand" Schooping expertly reviews in the appendix) simply doesn't possess when writing about Protestantism.
For anyone wrestling with questions about church authority, tradition, and the nature of Christian unity, this book offers invaluable insights from someone who has genuinely walked both paths.
October 20, 2024
As someone fascinated by Orthodoxy, I was really excited when a friend recommended me this book. I have to say, the arguments against Orthodoxy are very convincing and enlightening; shining light on several primary theological issues which are (in my experience with other Orthodox authors and apologists) often not mentioned. An example of this is the incessant anathema’s around issues which seem at face value unimportant, but are then made into salvational doctrine by the church themselves. He also highlights the straw-manning of Protestantism, which is something which I think is fascinating and provides an extra layer of depth to the discussion about “the one true church”. What strikes me reading this is how bizarre it is that Schooping ever became an Orthodox priest in the first place given the many clear issues he had with it. I do think it would have made a far more compelling and interesting read for him to have delved into his own journey and experience in his previous beliefs as an Orthodox priest. All in all a great read, but would have loved some more specific insights from Schooping about his own experiences and how they helped to form his move toward reformed theology.
October 5, 2025
Schooping criticizes heartily the Eastern church for three main things--their refusal to consider any other branch of the church a true church; their claims to stand equal to or above Scripture; their worship of icons and what amounts basically to worship of Mary.
The Eastern "orthodox" will pretend like they are the oldest, one true church, but none of their peculiarities can be traced back to the apostles or early church fathers. Also, unbeknownst to many in the West, they are just as divided, fractured, and denominational as any other branch of the church. How can they be the "one true church" if they comprise so many different churches not in communion with each other?
Don't get enticed by the smells and bells. There is an intellectual rot that cannot be masked. Just ask an Eastern Christian about penal substitution--is it taught in the Bible? Did the church fathers teach it? I don't think you'll like his answers.
The Eastern "orthodox" will pretend like they are the oldest, one true church, but none of their peculiarities can be traced back to the apostles or early church fathers. Also, unbeknownst to many in the West, they are just as divided, fractured, and denominational as any other branch of the church. How can they be the "one true church" if they comprise so many different churches not in communion with each other?
Don't get enticed by the smells and bells. There is an intellectual rot that cannot be masked. Just ask an Eastern Christian about penal substitution--is it taught in the Bible? Did the church fathers teach it? I don't think you'll like his answers.
December 5, 2024
He makes some good points in this but the inconsistency in formatting was annoying. Some of his Reformed theology comes through clearly.
May 7, 2025
Includes a wealth of citations which are helpful.
March 7, 2024
The book is fine and I think the author does a good job of arguing his point. While I generally agree with him and he brought up a lot of things I didn't know previously, it's worth mentioning that this book is why he left Orthodoxy, not about leaving Christianity. He's still a Christian, so the arguments are entirely theological.
Probably the bulk of his argument is against Orthodoxy's teaching on Mary. He also rails against icon veneration and the church's exclusivist attitude (everyone outside of the Orthodox church isn't Christian). I'm inclined to agree with him on many fronts and he regularly cites church sources for the teachings he's arguing against, but I don't know how authoritative those sources are.
So, I'd recommend the book.
Probably the bulk of his argument is against Orthodoxy's teaching on Mary. He also rails against icon veneration and the church's exclusivist attitude (everyone outside of the Orthodox church isn't Christian). I'm inclined to agree with him on many fronts and he regularly cites church sources for the teachings he's arguing against, but I don't know how authoritative those sources are.
So, I'd recommend the book.
November 29, 2025
Helpful overall — 7/10
*Definitely should undergo editing and formatting process though*
*Definitely should undergo editing and formatting process though*
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews