Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Eastern Orthodoxy and the Gospel

Yesterday I had a great blessing in that Frederica Matthewes-Green was in Bangor for our Bangor Theologian Group.  This group was brought together eight years ago by Rev. Jim Haddix of All Souls Church in Bangor because of the conviction that the primary issue within the Church in America is not a wrong technique or strategy but a lack of theological reflection.  We have had many wonderful Christian leaders come and join us for these discussions over the years.  Yesterday continued in this tradition.

For those who do not know, Mrs. Matthews-Green is an accomplished writer, a good cultural critic, and a proponent of Eastern Orthodoxy.  She converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in 1993 with her husband, who had been an Episcopalian priest before conversion.

While I enjoyed her presentation and her time with us, I also have to say that the presentation confirmed both what is interesting about Eastern Orthodoxy as well as why I am glad I am not Eastern Orthodox.

Why would I say so?  I am afraid most people do not know what Eastern Orthodoxy is all about.  Orthodoxy is an early brand of the gospel movement.  It flourished in the eastern Mediterranean from about the fourth or fifth century AD as a cultural articulation of Christianity.  While it was developing, Roman Catholicism was also developing in the Western Mediterranean.

For centuries, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism affirmed identical beliefs and similar forms of spirituality.  Yet, as time went on, these two branches of the Church steadily grew apart.  

Why?  A large part of the drift was theological.  These differences cannot be dismissed.  Another important cause of the eventual division (known as the Great Schism of 1054) was situational/cultural.  The center of the then Roman world shifted to the East in the fourth century.  This eventually became the Byzantine empire.  The West was left to itself and the Church steadily grew in influence.

Then Islam entered the picture.  Islam had a major shaping influence on the East since that was the site of constant battles throughout the middle ages.  By and large, the West did not have these struggles even as they had struggles against the raiding hordes from the north.  These influences continued to separate East from West.

Perhaps the biggest reason for the differences between East and West was the great cultural differences between the regions.  The East was from the beginning much more mystical and experiential in their religious practices.  The same culture that gave rise to Islam shared a belief in the transcendence of God.  In their belief system, Jesus and Mary began means of experiencing and encountering the transcendent Father.  In the East, the use of Icons grew in importance as well as the emphasis on encountering God through ritual, dreams, saints, Mary, and relics.  These intermediaries assist in worship by drawing us from this world into the heavenly realm.

While many of these traits also were important in the West, the emphasis was often different.  It appears to me (though other probably would differ) that Roman Catholicism retained a stronger emphasis on the equality of the Trinity while the East emphasized the differences in the persons of the Trinity.  The West also followed the lead of Augustine on many issues, particularly his doctrine of the Church, while the East retained an emphasis on desert Father spirituality.

It is truly not possible to do this justice in such a brief manner!  What I find interesting is that for all the differences, each branch of the Christian tree has so many similarities.  Why?  Because we all have the same root and stock!  While I am glad I am not on some other branches, I believe that where these branches are close to the root and stock, there is much overlap, agreement, and fidelity to the scriptures.

What do I mean?  Matthewes-Green began the discussion by sharing Eastern Orthodoxy has a strong emphasis on repentance as a lifestyle.  All I can say is Amen!  She affirms that Orthodoxy is concerned for seeing ourselves as in need of grace and mercy.  Thus, the central prayer of Eastern Orthodoxy is "Jesus have mercy on me," which is called the Jesus prayer.

Here is where I had some issues with her presentation.  She continued to proclaim that such an emphasis on repentance is something missing from Protestantism.  What does she mean?  She is right if she is pointing the spotlight on much of our shallow evangelicalism in America, but she is absolutely wrong if she believes this is missing from the Protestant branch.

Why?  Because repentance as a lifestyle is the teaching of scripture.  This is why Luther announced in the first of the 95 Thesis (the document that began the Protestant Reformation), "When the Lord says Repent, he willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance."

I am not surprised that Eastern Orthodoxy and the best of Protestant thought arrive as similar conclusions Just as I am also not surprised that the best of Catholicism arrives at the same conclusions.  The nearer to the root and trunk of the tree we get the more the branches have similarities.

It is my opinion that Matthewes-Green should grow in her understanding of Luther and Calvin because there is much to learn that would inform the Eastern Orthodox position (though one of the greatest weakness of Eastern Orthodoxy is that it refuses to learn anything past the first five or six centuries of the Church).  At the very least, she should stop saying that our shallow evangelicalism is the same as those movements in Protestantism that are deeply committed to the scriptures as informed by the entire Christian tradition.

Regardless, I was so enriched and encouraged to look at the grace and mercy of Christ through her presentation.  There is much in Eastern Orthodox practice that I recommend even as there is much in their thought and practice that makes me glad to be a Protestant.

When we know what the Christian tree looks like, we can rejoice in the source of all power and glory our Lord Jesus Christ.  He is the root and stock of this strange but beautiful creation called the Church.  We can also affirm why we belong to our particular branch of the tree without feeling judgmental of other branches.  I am so thankful for the grace of Christ for without it we would all be in trouble!

Overall, the time of reflection upon Christ was a perfect way to prepare my heart for Easter.  May each of us take time this week to prepare our hearts for the celebration of our Risen King.

9 comments:

  1. Greg, thanks for the post. As much as I appreciate your friendship and your expertise as a Church historian, I would have to disagree and say that Matthews-Green is still correct.

    I agree with you that if those in EO look at Calvin and Luther, the first generation Reformers, they will definitely find themselves wrong in most of their generalizations and assessments. Thesis one of the 95 Theses was in fact on Repentance. And Calvin in chapter 7 of book three of the Institutes identified the practice of repentance as "the sum of the Christian life." This of course is because they were really a Catholic Reform movement and leaned heavily on the Fathers. But it did not even take a full generation for it to degenerate into anti-catholic pietism and sectarianism. The Puritans which are being lauded as heroes of Reformed theology are actually a radical and gross departure from it.

    We can appeal to Luther and Calvin all we want, but that theology and ecclesiology has by and large been totally abandoned by Protestants and Evangelicals for centuries now. J.W. Nevin and Schaff demonstrated how even Hodge and the Princtonians had for the most part abandoned an historic Reformed Ecclesiology.

    So Matthews-Green is right to say that Evangelicals have abandoned Repentance. In fact most of them that visit SJC often remark that they have never heard such an emphasis on it before. The doctrine of Repentance resides at the center of all biblical revelation, be that torah, prophets, writings, or NT. The Gospel is fundamentally that God is savior and Lord, therefore repent. That has been lost in Protestantism and EO must get an A for at least keeping the main thing the main thing.

    There are other charges wee could lay at the feet of EO, but it still remains far more orthodox than Protestantism as a movement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Todd,
    I thank you for your always thoughtful responses! I do have to say that I think you spent too much time with me in a Protestant denomination that likes polemic. I had to re-read my post to see if I actually said what you said I said. I do not think I did!

    In my context, which is quite the opposite of yours, I have many who do not think they have anything to learn from RC, EO, or even the Protestant tradition. Of course their fundamentalist Baptist upbringing had it all. To these folks I write. I also have quite a few folks who read daily from Russia. As to their background, I do not know for sure, but I would think EO has to be in the mix somewhere. What I say to all these folks is there is much to learn in all the historic branches of the Church. I say the same to you! You sound way to negative on Protestantism for my tastes. Where these branches are close to the root and trunk of the vine, they overlap, agree, and hold to the true historic faith. The further we get from the root and trunk, the further into our own weirdness we roam.

    What I strongly caution you (and Matthewes-Green) about is painting with such strong and wrong historical brush strokes. All the Puritans were a radical and gross departure from Reformed theology. Surely you know better than that! If not, read my dissertation as I follow the life and thought of a man who tried not to leave the best of Protestantism. Of course there are folks who travel far afield. They are in every branch of the Church, and in every age of the Church. It is the best of each branch to which we should cling! Learn from the best and stop saying the worst is the whole.

    Finally, if all evangelicals (broadly defined) abandoned repentance what is your church of mine? What is our ministry about? Are you taking orders in RC or EO? I hope not. I hope we are trying to present the best of our tradition, which I quite frankly would not trade for any other branch of the historic Christian Church tree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for the typos! Pressed the publish button prematurely and cannot figure out who to correct. I hope you can get my point even with the syntax errors.

      Delete
  3. Greg,

    Thanks for the reply. There was no intention to be argumentative. I was just interested in the topic and thought you would appreciate thoughtful push-back. I am currently working on a manuscript about the wholesale loss of repentance within evangelicalism which will likely be named "The Lost Gospel of Repentance."

    I am not down on Protestantism, but only offering honest corrective critique, and feel that Matthews-Green's general assessment is true. The bottom line Greg is that modern Protestantism does not share Luther/Calvin's convictions. So is appealing to them intellectually honest considering the state of Evangelicalism today?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Todd,
    I do appreciate the thoughtful feedback! I think we both are barking up the same tree, we are just coming at it from different sides of the tree. I am looking forward to reading the manuscript. It sounds interesting and very needed. We need honest correctives to our current state of affairs.

    As for intellectually honest appeals to Luther/Calvin, if they are part of the corrective, then by all means they should be brought back to light. If modern evangelicalism is really a shallow heresy, then we need to be honest about it. I am glad to affirm a tradition that allows all forms of true Christianity and true spirituality to speak and help with the corrective.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well said. I am deeply persuaded by the Reformed formulation of historical Christianity as we find in the forms of Unity and other Reformed confessions. On further reflection, I see how my blanket statement about Puritanism was imprecise. If we are talking theology proper and especially soteriology, Yes the Puritans were quite Calvinistic and I would even give them some major props for thinking out the doctrine of repentance we were talking about. However when we move to ecclesilogy and sacramentology, that is where they mark a significant departure. On that assessment I am in some pretty good company with Philip Schaff and J.W. Nevin. Nevin presents a tour de force in "The Mystical Presence" for how the "Puritan principle" radically departs from the historically high view of the sacrament in the Reformed confessions. There he identifies even Edwards and many other congregationalists reduced the sacrament to primarily (a) something that promotes inward sentiment and piety toward God, and (b) is no more a form of communion with Christ than any other aspect of the ministry of the Church. This therefore relegates the sacrament of the Eucharist to no special value. Nevin argues this is in direct contrast to the Reformed confessions that contend that the Eucharist is indeed a real partaking of Christ's flesh and blood, through the power of the Spirit, though there is no local presence (like Lutheranism and RC) but Christ's body remains enthroned in the heavens.

    I know you are probably familiar with the Mercersburg debate with Hodge and the Princetonians, but if you have never read the Mystical Presence, I highly commend it to you. You won't be disappointed. Nevin is one of the most impressive theological minds in recent history.

    Thanks again brother, and congrats on the coming addition. Carl told me about it.

    Blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gentlemen,

    Thank you so much for your above conversation! It was very helpful for me, as I am currently an author of a blog that deals (or will in the future) some of these very issues between the branches of the Christian church. I personally am part of the Reformed tradition, although I have a good friend who is Methodist and another who is Anglican/RC. What interesting conversations we have!

    However, one important distinction I have begun to make is between Protestantism on the one hand, and Evangelical Anabaptistism on the other. The apparent issues within Evangelicalism, especially the American flavor, is that so much of it has been developed out of the old Anabaptist movement, especially following the American "enlightenment" of the early 1800s.

    What I think would be helpful in this conversation is the clearly delineate a clear difference between Protestantism on the one hand, and Anabaptist thought and practice on the other. Careful students of the Reformation, I think, will see very important and vital differences in the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the different groups.

    My conclusion then is there really is a difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism. They have very different assumptions, hermeneutics, conclusions. Now, this doesn't mean Protestants are not interested in evangelism, of course they are! I am speaking of Evangelicalism as a primarily American expression of Christianity coming from the Anabaptist stock.

    I'm sure both of you gentlemen have already considered this, but I think perhaps as a culture, a firmer distinction needs to be made. This would not be to create disunity within the body of Christ, but to stimulate conversation. One of the fundamental requirements of communication (and reflection) is to understand both your assumptions and the assumptions of those you are speaking with. If we continue to gloss over the differences for the sake of unity and overemphasis those things (often not the gospel) that supposedly make us unified (like evangelism, which I never understood because even false religion and cults do this), then I do not think we can reasonably expect an increase in theological reflection in this country or a clear understanding of Protestantism by those outside of our particular tree (RC and EO).

    Hopefully I will have more to say about this at the blog I help author (libertyinbetween.blogspot.com), so again I thank for engaging in a much needed an helpful discussion!

    ~Low

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the helpful comments Low. I think your distinction between historic Protestantism and Evnagelicalism is a valid one. There are many quality thinkers that share this view. For instance Robert W. Jensen distinguishes between Evangelicalism and historic "Evangelical Catholics" which refers to Lutheran and Reformed. The helps maintain the evangelical emphasis of the Reformation, without slipping into the anti-church, anti-clerical, anti-sacramental subjectivism that dominates modern Evangelicalism as a movement.

      Your reference to this as "Anabaptist" I believe to be true, But Greg, (the very competent Church historian he is) is right to say that it is not technically the result of Anabaptist influence, which were mostly marginal. The low-Church emphasis in both Anabaptism and Evangelicalism is very similar, and has some relationship, but Greg is right to clarify that it is a uniquely American thing with just the same characteristics

      J.W. Nevin in "The Mystical Presence" refers to it as both the Baptistic or Puritan principle. (Baptists are an offshoot of congregationalism). I will check out your blog: Here is mine with a relevant post to this discussion today: http://sjchurch.org/blog/details/christian-iq-testing-your-christian-thinking

      Delete
  7. Low,

    Thanks for weighing in on the discussion. I also thank you for your observations!

    I think you are right on with pointing out the "American Enlightenment" as influencing our religious expressions. Surely the revival of the 1800s were marked by this Enlightenment stream. The assumptions of the American Enlightenment were unreflectively assumed into our religious expressions. Unfortunately, to point out these assumptions means you are a "liberal" or "heretic" to those who presume that the Bible teaches such individualism, pragmatism, and anti-intellectualism.

    That being said, I think the Anabaptist influence is much less than you think. At least in the way that you articulate it. When many religious movements arrived in America, they radically changed. Why? I think it was the pragmatic and free air of the New World. What resulted? Movements that looked like the "leveling" wing of the Anabaptist thought. Movements that ignored theological reflection because it takes "experts" do lead in such discussions. Also, as Todd noticed, movements that de-emphasize the sacraments and biblical Church leadership for personal religious experience and ardent congregationalism. Notice that both of these symptoms derive from the rejection of a trained and called "clergy" who are called to lead the sacraments and guide the Church.

    Yet, such a position was not often not arrived at by theological reflection. We arrived here because it matched the pragmatic and anti-intellectual side of American religious experience. The relationship is more of default than planned.

    You are right that the consequences are the same! In some place, such as Maine, Baptists rule the landscape and the ties are easier to see. Yet, I don't know many Baptists who could name even one Anabaptist author or one distinctive of that movement.

    ReplyDelete