On Orthodoxy East and West

Of course, conservatism has its down side too. It can make institutions and traditions impervious to needed change and growth. The Church Father Cyprian once wrote that “Antiquity without truth is but an old error” (Epistle 74). And he was right. Just because something is old does not make it true or right, and here Orthodox conservatism sometimes consternates even the faithful. One case of this that attracts much attention today from Orthodox themselves is the curious absence of any citation from the book of Revelation in the Holy Liturgy. As anyone familiar with the Orthodox Liturgy knows, it is a wonderful repository of both Old and New Testament Scriptures, but why not a single citation from Revelationz—the most liturgical book of the New Testament?⁵ The usual explanation offered for this by Orthodox is that at the time the Liturgy was formulating in 4th century Syria, Revelation was not considered to be canonical in this region, so it was left out.⁶ So by their strict conservatism a misstep that may have been prudent in the 4th century continues to mark the Church down to the present century.

Another trace of Orthodox conservatism may be found in the Orthodox approach to the issues raised by the Protestant Reformation. To Protestants and Orthodox alike the Orthodox Church remains to this day an unreformed Church. The 16th century dissent of Luther and company that ultimately brought about the churches of the Reformation and reactionary changes in Catholicism did not touch the Orthodox Church of the eastern regions. But the moniker unreformed does not particularly bother Orthodox; in fact, they glory in their resilience against the Reformation. Why? Two reasons. First, because the Protestant play proved what the East had said for centuries about the waywardness of Rome. The Catholic west had needed reforming since the day the local church at Rome began abusing its primacy of honor. By the 16th century Catholicism was corrupt in both doctrine and practice of the Christian life. In this the Orthodox see the Protestant reaction as correct and appropriate. But, and this is the second reason, it was “too little too late.” The Protestant agenda, while well intended, was not able to give the needed corrective because it too was but a creature of the Roman west. Orthodox are quick to point out that the Reformation was really an internecine battle. It was fought on western soil over western doctrinal novelties. It used western language, methods and approaches. In short, in the view of the Orthodox, the Reformation is still infected with the western approach to Christianity—the sorts of things highlighted by Fairbairn (above). The Reformers had given different answers to the Catholics, yes, but they were still western, individualized, and forensic answers.

In my view the Orthodox charge here is, at least in part, fairly leveled at us. Protestantism is a movement colored by the historical context of its birth. However—and this is where Orthodox are not apt to concede—in this Protestantism is like every other denomination, Orthodoxy included. If the Catholics and the Protestants are guilty of being over-contextualized, of having their telling of the Christian Story shaped by the language and philosophies of the Roman legal mind and the Scholastics’ rationalism, how did the Greek east escape similar influences in their own context? Is the Orthodox telling of the Christian Story with its own emphases, starting points, central motifs and presuppositions free of the influence of alien philosophies and cultural norms? The very idea that the Eastern Church alone escaped unscathed strains belief; it is also not well supported in fact.

Theological Reflection

Clearly there were historically contextualized forces that pushed and pulled and ultimately left their mark on the ecumenical patristic Church’s theological reflection, which is the common root of the Tradition shared by Orthodox and Catholic alike and most jealously guarded by the Orthodox. And here is where Protestants level their protest and appeal for the distinctives that truly make them different from both the Orthodox and the Catholics. No one denies that a Sunday morning reading of the Holy Liturgy in Orthodox churches today has forms not found in the worship of the apostolic churches of the New Testament including “priests,” altars, sacramentals (holy water, etc.), and icons. The role of the virgin Mary also rings very different from the New Testament. Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov writes, “a faith in Christ which does not include His virgin birth and the veneration of His Mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox Church. Protestantism is this other sort of Christianity ….” These are strong words indeed, given the “curtain of silence” drawn around Mary in the Church’s first four hundred years.⁷ By the same token, no one denies either that the melodies of Neoplatonic philosophy get a lot of air-time in the patristic Tradition. The east’s earliest major theologians (Origen and the Cappadocian fathers) were all well-versed in the ascent of the soul, the contemplative ideal as the summum bonum, and gnosis true and false.

The point to these and many more examples like them is the question of the authority of Holy Church Tradition in the Christian life and the way doctrine developed following the apostolic period. It is precisely why the Protestants called for the single authority of Scripture in their sola Scriptura mantra. Without an authority outside the human condition, all of us are going to tell the King’s Story in ways slanted somewhat to the times in which we live. But Orthodox explicitly deny sola Scriptura, saying Scripture alone is not sufficient for this task. In fact, Scripture is formally and materially insufficient for Christian faith and practice. Scripture is formally insufficient because it’s just a literary form that still requires the total life context of the Church for its proper interpretation. After all it was the Spirit-led Church that gave us the New Testament in the first place! And Scripture is materially insufficient because it does not even contain the necessary records of worship and liturgy the Church needs for faith and practice.⁸