My dear wife sent me a link to this article, which I here reproduce. I urge you to read it before proceeding.
I thought this was a really good article and I commend the writer for studying at St Vladimir's Seminary, clearly outside his comfort zone, and exposing himself to a very different theological background. It takes guts to do that.
I have been an "inquirer" into what we in the west call Eastern Orthodoxy for about the last three years and I also have come from a Calvinist perspective, but I reached different conclusions than the writer did. So I would like to offer a few thoughts on why.
I strikes me that the author examines Orthodoxy's shortcomings from deep within his Western and Reformed tradition rather than looking at it on its own terms. While this is unfortunate, it is also not surprising. For me, looking at Orthodoxy has challenged my assumptions and my way of looking at the world. It is a different mindset.
Justification by Faith
He remarks that the Orthodox do not seem to understand justification by faith. This cardinal doctrine of the Reformation is built on Anselm's theology (11th century), especially in his "Cur Deus Homo?" (Why did God become Man?). Anselm originated the idea that Christ's death on the cross was primarily intended to satisfy God's wrath against man for his sin and to thereby put us in a legally justified relationship with God. Note that this kind of justification does not empirically or ontologically change man. It is something that is not externally visible. The Roman church as a result, developed the idea of purgatory, realizing that justified sinners never the less needed to experience some sort of experiential growth in holiness prior to standing before a holy God in judgment. Luther of course, rejected this notion and declared that we are justified "by faith ALONE", an assertion, it should be noted, that the scriptures never make. What then often follows is a conflict between "faith" and "works", so much so that Luther was prepared to remove the Epistle of James from the New Testament canon.
The Orthodox were not part of this Western theological debate and do not see salvation in this way. The Orthodox spiritual goal of "Theosis", or deification, is not quite the same as the Western notion of sanctification. Sin is seen primarily as a sickness that needs to be healed; Christ's passion provides the primary means of this healing, through His church. Theosis is nothing less than becoming progressively healed of this sin sickness and becoming progressively closer to God and in fact entering into the very life of God. For the Orthodox, this IS salvation. It is not an attempt to escape the fires of hell or the wrath of God, but rather to enter into the very life of God, who loves mankind and has demonstrated his love for us by his incarnation and passion (death, resurrection and ascension). The Western term "saving faith" presupposes the need to be saved in a judicial sense from God's wrath. This is not the salvation that the Orthodox are looking for, partly because they do not see God as essentially wrathful. The scriptures say rather that God is love, and the doctrine of the Trinity shows us that this is indeed the case: the Father has loved the Son from all eternity. In His Love, the Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners not from God's wrath, but from their own fallenness. Salvation is entering into this very love relationship with the Father.
Nominal Membership and Ethnic Ties
Nominalism is certainly a problem in much of American Orthodoxy. A recent census and statistical study for example, shows that the Greeks have the largest membership, but the lowest per capita giving and weekly church attendance. It is also true that most of the Orthodox churches in America have strong ethnic ties, which hinder them from relating to Americans that are not part of that ethnic group. These are all consequences of their history in this country. I see these two problems as intimately related. The primary reason why many immigrants to this country maintain ties to the church is not because of Christ but because of ethnicity. As the generations progress, these ethnic ties weaken. And so does their tie to the church.
However there is a growing number of American-born converts to Orthodoxy and they are having an influence on this situation. As an example, the current head of the Orthodox Church of America (OCA, descended from the Russian church) is a non-Russian American who is a former Anglican. His predecesessor was also a convert from American Protestantism. The man who founded the OCA Diocese of the South was a convert from the Baptist church. Simultaneously as the generations progress, third and fourth generation immigrants must come to terms with living in America as Americans, and what this means for their faith.
In any case, this is not a theological problem, but a practical one. It is a problem that is not unique to the Orthodox; there are many Protestant and Catholic churches with similar issues. And it is a problem that the Orthodox themselves are keenly aware of and seeking to address.
Sovereign Grace
The Orthodox certainly do not see grace, free will and "original sin" in the same way as Calvinists do. Calvinists believe that because of the fall of man, all men inherit guilt, and the image of God is damaged beyond recognition. Only with saving faith in Christ can this guilt be atoned for and the image of God restored in man. The Orthodox hold that Adam's sin did damage our likeness to God, but not His essential image in us. From the fall we inherit the propensity to sin, but not guilt, as if we are to blame for Adam's sin. This damage is the very thing that needs healing. In the natural, in order for us to be healed of a disease, we must get up and go to a doctor, and once there, heed his instructions. Just so we must choose to be healed of our sin by seeking and following the remedy that Christ has provided in his Church. In other words, we must choose to move toward God. Like the Prodigal Son, our motives may be mixed or even wrong as we move, but God, who like the father in that parable, is always looking expectingly for us, will more than meet us and give us His grace.
Use of Icons
I am intrigued by his comment that "the critique I would now offer is considerably different than the traditional Reformed critique" of the practice of venerating icons. I would love to know his new perspective. There is a rather well developed theology around the use of icons, starting with the fact that Christ himself is the icon (image) of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) and we are icons (images) of God (Genesis 1:27). Icons are a visible, daily reminder of some very important truths. To name a few examples of these truths:
- Christ was not an imaginary person. If you had an iPhone, you could have snapped a picture of him and posted it on Facebook so people could "like" and comment on it. The incarnation really happened. Christ has made the invisible God visible.
- We are not alone. As Jesus said of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Those who preceeded us in faith are still very much part of God's family now, even though we cannot see them. In point of fact we are "surrounded by a cloud of witnesses", who are cheering us on and who are worshipping God right along with us.
- One aspect of this witness is the fact that these flesh and blood humans actually attained to a level of holy living and "theosis" - union with God - in this life. We need to learn from and be encouraged by their example.
The Bible
When reading Protestant statements of faith, one nearly universally finds that the first or perhaps second article describes the Bible as being the sole authority. As Luther put it, "sola scriptura", the Bible alone. However, scripture itself never claims this for itself. Keeping in mind that the New Testament canon was not agreed until well into the fourth century, what was the plight of the Christian people in a world where there was no complete Bible for the first three hundred years of the faith? For the Orthodox Church the criterion is not "is it Biblical?", but rather "is it Apostolic?" In fact the decisions around which books would be in the New Testament and which would not centered around this criterion. The Bible is part, albeit the most important part, of the Apostolic tradition. The Bible is at its heart the Church's book and it can only be read within the context of the Church -- it does not and was not intended to stand on its own.
All readers of the Bible bring with them their own tradition and interpret it through that tradition. The Orthodox assert that the only valid way of reading the Bible is through the Apostolic tradition, which is why they consciously seek to see how the church has interpreted it before.
Looking at the Nicene Creed - the only creed to have explicit approval by the undivided Church and the one to which nearly all Christian groups adhere - we find that along with asserting belief in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit there is belief, not in the Bible per se, but rather in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".
Conclusion
I appreciate his concluding statement "Let us have the maturity to keep the faith as we know it and to learn from others where we need to learn." I heartily agree. I have spent many years studying Protestant and especially Calvinist theology, as well as dealing on a practical level with Christians of many stripes. It was initially out of curiousity that I began to look into Orthodoxy. I continue to be fascinated by fact that the Orthodox see so many things in a completely different way than does Western Chrstianity. Even the very idea of "theology" is different. As a Calvinist, I was taught that right belief about doctrine was essential to saving faith. It was sufficient to assent to a body of propositional truths about God stated in a systematic theology. By contrast, the Orthodox do not call someone a theologian unless and until they have personally experienced the living God directly and have an ongoing relationship with Him that is evident in their daily living.
When I examine the things I have longed for in my Christian life, I am surprised to find them in the Orthodox Church, hidden there all along, a "pearl of great price." And so I continue on this journey.
