Orthodoxy prides itself on never changing. The faith claims that it is the continuation of Apostolic Christianity, the very ancient church itself. And you can surely make a claim that at least from the ninth century or so, Eastern, Byzantine Christianity has remained very stable and consistent. Surely the modern period is wearing away at that edifice, as the current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople demonstrates. Indeed, it really seems that Eastern Orthodoxy has never faced as wide a variety of challenges as it does today, and to be honest, it is struggling to respond.

The majority of American evangelicals view Eastern Orthodoxy as a small group of odd folks who smell of incense and are basically just ethnically oriented (Russian, Greek) Pope-less Catholics. The only real theological difference they could cite between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism would be the Papacy. Everything else looks and sounds the same.

Over the past few years, however, there has been an uptick in interest in Eastern Orthodoxy. Most believe this has been prompted by the fact that Pope Francis made it very hard for Roman Catholicism to argue that it is the “ancient church” when it is clear Francis (and Leo) are not overly concerned about “Apostolic tradition” or the “ancient” views of pretty much anyone at all. So folks fleeing a surface-level evangelicalism that has no understanding of church history, nor its place in that history, have been turning to Eastern Orthodoxy as an alternative. In this article, I’ll point out 1) why East/West dialogue is difficult, 2) how Eastern Orthodoxy is not as ancient or stable as people often think, and 3) some of the main divisions between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

The East/West Divide

There have been some attempts to write books introducing the issues surrounding Eastern Orthodoxy amongst evangelicals, but they all run into the same problem. And it is the problem that is central to our thinking in this short article as well. We in the West think in a completely different manner than those in the East. Since most American evangelicals do not travel internationally, let alone globally, it is difficult to bridge the conceptual gap that separates us. We want to ask questions that Eastern Orthodoxy simply does not think relevant to answer. And it is this conceptual and linguistic barrier that we have to understand.

Now, our new global world, created by the internet, is changing this dynamic. But the defining structures of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the various Protestant denominations, were solidified long before the new era dawned. And the Eastern mindset remains strong in, at least, true and historically relevant Eastern Orthodoxy. I would illustrate the difference that makes dialogue difficult in just this way: you can turn to a book, to a document, to a Papal Encyclical or some such item, to define what Roman Catholicism means, say, by the Bodily Assumption of Mary. You can look to the Council of Trent for Rome’s definition of justification, or the Mass. Yes, modern Rome has become a lot more “squishy” on being so clear and so forthright with her doctrines, but that is not due to a change in worldview, it is due to the decline of Western culture as a whole.

But when you ask Eastern Orthodoxy about dogmas, you do not, generally, get a reference to a canon or statement. You get . . . the liturgy. Real Eastern Orthodoxy (not the Westernized version common on the internet, originating in the United States mainly) defines its beliefs by her liturgical practice, her prayers, her saints, and her history.1 They often find our “forensically minded” questions to miss the point. The East embraces mystery, experience, the energeiai (energies), the chant, the incense. And while both Rome and the East celebrate saints, those saints in the Eastern tradition have even more of a “mystical” role in defining the faith.2

This is why you can encounter a wide range of theological expressions and understandings coming from Orthodox sources. When the primary lens through which one sees theology is mystical in nature, informed by prayers, chants, and “energies,” the range of expression, at least as it is viewed from the more logically oriented West, seems wide indeed.3 But even here, the Orthodox might not understand why we do not see the coherence of even what appear to us to be divergent or even contradictory views. Again, I refer to the Orthodox who live in the lands where Orthodoxy is the primary expression of Christian belief.

Read More