Fathers, Heretics, and Theologoumena
theeastwestseries.com
The following is a portion of first lecture from The East-West Series, a 25-lecture exploration of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western Christianity. I’m currently crowdfunding to complete production of the full series, which will launch Summer 2026.
If this work resonates with you, I hope you’ll consider backing the project. Supporter tiers start at the lowest price the series will ever be offered, and go up to tiers that include live Q&A sessions, a 14-week live course, and private calls with me.
Watch the series trailer:
Read part 1 here.
Read part 2 here.
Now, before we dive into the meat of this series, I want to first define some terms and concepts that will appear frequently throughout. Let’s begin with the terms East and West. If you know your Roman history you know there came a point when Rome had spread across the known world, and worries emerged about destabilization due to its vast span. So, in 293 A.D., Diocletian established the tetrarchy, which functionally divided the empire in half, East and West, each with its own rulers. Each half would later come to have two distinct capitals, Constantinople, established by Constantine (in the East), and Rome (the traditional, though not always functional, capital in the West). The regional and political divide also corresponded to a linguistic divide. The West largely spoke Latin, while the East spoke Greek — along with other languages, such as Syriac and Coptic. So, when we speak about Eastern and Western Christianity, we are referring to this regional and linguistic divine within the Roman Empire: That is to say, Christianity as it developed in the Latin West as contrasted with Christianity as developed in the East. This is why some speak about the Latin Church fathers (in the West) and the Greek Church fathers (in the East). The problem, of course, is that the East spoke more than just Greek — hence, my preference for the term “Eastern Church fathers.”
Now, this brushes against another term: What is meant by the term “Church father”? The way I’ll be using the term in this series is specifically for those writers of the first millennium who are significant to the formulation of the theology of the Church. The most obvious representatives are those figures (later deemed Saints) who played a part in putting down an ecumenical heresy. For example, the first major ecumenical heresy was Arianism, named for Arius of Alexandria, which argued that the Son of God is not divine but a creature. The position was opposed by Athanasius (amongst others), whose stance was vindicated at the Council of Nicea, leading to the first draft of the Nicene Creed. Athanasius and other defenders of the Apostolic faith — such as the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus — are obvious examples of Church fathers.
However, the early Church also includes amongst its fathers Saints who played no part in quelling a heresy but nonetheless were beacons of lived Christianity. The Desert Fathers are the most obvious example. These fathers are so named because they retreated to the desert in order to put to death the passions, embodying renunciation of the world, the mortification of the passions, and complete devotion to God in ceaseless prayer. Yes, such monastics would, from time to time, find themselves pulled from their caves to aid in putting to death a heresy, but such was not required for these to be deemed fathers of the Church. Hence, the annals of the Church fathers is not limited to those apologists and theologians who championed orthodoxy over heresy, but includes those Saints who championed orthodoxy by way of their Saintly example.
Two brief asides on the Church fathers are worth noting before we continue. The first is that the Orthodox Church does not limit the fathers of the Church to the first millennium. However, as an academic convention of those who study the fathers, such a cutoff is often used — hence the use of the term in this series. A second aside concerns a string of words you might periodically hear in this series, namely, “patrology,” “patristics,” or “patristic thought.” Patrology, and its cognates, refers to the formal study of the Church fathers — derived from the Latin for father, pater, which mirrors the Greek, pateros (πατέρος).
Now, outside of these Church fathers, we have authors who occupy a middle space, figures we might label early Christian “writers” instead of fathers. Clement of Alexandria is a good example. Clement is neither a heretic nor is he a canonized Saint, typically counted amongst the Church fathers. Yet, he’s a figure of great significance. Why? Because his writings preserve a great deal of early Christian thought and practice. Hence, his writings offer an important and reliable testimony to early Christianity, even if his own thoughts are not treated with the same level of authority as the fathers of the Church. Other anonymous works could also be placed in this category, such as the Protoevangelium of James or the Gospel of Nicodemus, works that are neither authoritative nor heretical, but are examples of early Christian literature, which preserve early Christian traditions.
One figure within this middle space that merits a word all his own is Origen of Alexandria. Origen was a brilliant Christian writer and apologist, whose influence is significant. Yet, even his admirers admit that Origen toyed with ideas that were heterodox, at best, and heretical, at worst. Hence, his legacy is mixed. The great fathers, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, assembled the Philokalia of Origen, a collection of approved passages from his writings, because of their value. Yet, Origen’s teachings also bore bad fruit, yielding a host of “Origenists” who espoused doctrines that the Church would condemn as heretical at Constantinople II. To be sure, Origen himself was not a heretic, since the poisonous fruit that grew out of his works would not be condemned until long after his repose. Nonetheless, his writings occupy a peculiar middle ground of being undeniably important, while also requiring a great deal of discernment, given the mixed bag of his legacy.
Now, since the word “heretic” has now emerged, it seems suitable to address the term. Some tend to use words like “orthodoxy” and “heresy” to mean “I strongly agree” and “I strongly disagree” or “I think that’s biblical” and “I think that’s unbiblical.” In this series, however, I’ll be using these words in a more technical sense. The word “heresy” comes from the Greek word for choice, hairesis (αἵρεσις). The word choice is important. The term does not merely indicate an incorrect idea, but rather a false teaching that the Church has identified as contrary to the faith of the Apostles and yet is chosen nonetheless. This is why I say Origen is not a heretic. He toyed with ideas that would be deemed contrary to the faith and condemned as heresy — a warning to any who might choose such doctrines. But Origen himself never faced such a choice; only his later followers did.
As for the term “orthodoxy,” the word indicates right belief or judgment. Hence, the contrast between heresy and orthodoxy is the contrast between right belief and the choice to embrace falsehood. My use of these terms within this series will be strictly historical. Arianism, for example, claims that the Son of God is not divine but a creature. The teaching was condemned as heresy at Nicea, the First Ecumenical Council — and Arius was thus condemned as a heretic. The position of Athanasius, which the council upheld, is thus the orthodox position — which is to say, the position Nicea determines and proclaims to be the faith of the Apostles. Such statements are historical facts, regardless of what one personally believes. This historical sense of these terms will be the sense used throughout this series.
Of course, “Orthodoxy” can also be used in reference to Eastern Orthodox Christianity or the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I will rarely speak about the teachings of the Orthodox Church. In this series, my Eastward focus will be on the teachings of the Eastern fathers. Yes, such teachings are advocated by the Orthodox Church, but my discussion of Eastern Christianity is patristic in orientation. To avoid confusion, then, I will avoid the term Orthodoxy, in this ecclesial sense, referring instead to Eastern Orthodoxy or Eastern Christianity or the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Before moving on, a word should be said about what the Christian East refers to as theologoumenon (θεολογούμενον). This term refers to ideas that are neither orthodox nor heretical, representing instead a permissible theological opinion. Important to recognize is that the Church fathers are not always uniform in their thinking. By way of example, can fallen angels repent? Restricting the question to the Eastern fathers, the clear majority think No. But we do find exceptions. Nemesius of Emesa believes they could have repented for a season, but that window is now closed. Pseudo-Dionysius thinks corruption can never be permanent, since it is a divergence from proper formation; as such, it has no end at which it aims and in which it might rest. And St. Isaac the Syrian not only believes fallen angels can repent but will one day repent. Now, there are boundaries established by the Ecumenical Councils that restrict what one might say on this topic. But within these boundaries, we find a spectrum of positions, all permissible. Hence, not every teaching falls to either orthodoxy or heresy; some fall in a middle space of permissible opinion — which is to say, an opinion that avoids heresy and is compatible with but not required by the Apostolic faith. Such is theologoumenon.
Stay tuned for part 4 of the first lecture. If you found this valuable, please consider backing the full East-West Series. Your support will help bring all 25 lectures to life.
Can’t contribute right now? Becoming a paid Substack subscriber helps support all my work, and you’ll unlock my full archive plus the 15+ hour Orthodox Foundations series.
