Orthodoxy- Look at it from an Historical Viewpoint

Yesterday, I posted on James Payton's book, Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2007), and it brought an interesting reaction from another missions practitioner (whom I highly value).  Perhaps it would be helpful to shed some historical light on this contrasting form of Christianity. In his book Payton builds his argument on several elements to describe the division between the Eastern and Western Church. Linguistically, the East was influenced by the Greek language with all of its Hellenistic nuances while the West was influenced by the structure and Roman mindset of Latin. Ancient Greece gave the world an emphasis on human reason while Roman Empire insisted on law and justice. Payton believes these orientations are some of the deep roots in the later development of Eastern and Western psyches. With the development of large Hellenic cosmopolitan centers, the East moved philosophically into impersonality and “even what reason could not reach” (23). Roman philosophy evolved with a greater stress on practicality and utilitarianism. It only stands to reason that “during the early third century a significant difference arose between Christian leaders in the two halves of the empire as to how best to present the claims of Christianity” (24). The schism that followed could be traced politically and doctrinally.

Payton’s modus operandi in building his defense of Orthodoxy as a valid viewpoint is threefold. He first shows the argument and why the argument has taken place. Secondly, he refutes the argument with data or proofs. And finally he turns it around to argue that the same could be said of Western Christianity. As almost a postscript, he presents a statement on each point of how the west could benefit by looking at things from an eastern mindset.

Political Schism

Historically, the East and the West faced a schism based not only on doctrinal issues but on political moves. Payton argues that the political sacking of Constantinople in AD 1204 by Western Christians “led to the deep chasm between Western and Eastern Christianity that continues to the present” (34). This ultimately led Pope John Paul II to a public apology in 2001.

On doctrinal ends though, Payton says the way the East and the West differ in talking about God is even more “disconcerting and disorienting” than any other distinctive between the two (72). Even the varied influences led to a differing orientation in viewing the Trinity. 

Already by the fourth century, two contrasting approaches of setting forth Trinitarian doctrine had developed. Eastern Christianity followed the Cappadocian fathers, who started with the three persons and moved to the oneness of God. By contrast, Western Christianity took the path of St. Augustine, who began with the oneness of God and moved to the threeness of the persons (70).

This orientation eventually led to a huge doctrinal schism based on the West’s adherence to Augustinian pneumatology as proceeding from both the Father and the Son over against the East’s Cappadocian insistence that the Father was the source for both the Son and the Spirit. This filioque clause became the permanent rift between the two sides that has continued.

            The distrust continued as the Byzantine Empire became overrun by the Turkish Muslims

in 1453, and the “church became inextricably intertwined with nation” (38). The Turkish influence not only led to national churches that could not meet without imperial control, but it also led to a church leadership that was heavily influenced by that political regime. The only place where this did not happen was the Russian Orthodox Church, but the twentieth century brought a repressive empire of communism yet gave way to a general feeling that Moscow was the new Rome.

Doctrinal Schism

Payton believes that the major differences between the East and the West are doctrinal though, as does my missionary friend. The Western Church’s “attitudes toward doctrine lead to expectations of clarity and explanations in doctrine” (66). The East, on the other hand, sees creeds as forbidding warning signs. The goal in the Eastern Church “is not explanation of the Christian faith, but faithful adherence to its mysteries” (67). While some might argue that Orthodoxy has a flavor of Pagan philosophy, Payton successfully rebuts this argument by showing how Orthodoxy opposed Gnosticism and drew a clear distinction between the Creator and creation. He explains how Orthodoxy opposed to the Hellenic understanding of cosmos with an Orthodox proposal of God’s immutability. Moreover, Payton proposes that Orthodoxy is theology influenced by its historical Eastern development.

            So, if there are real differences, what are they? How does Orthodoxy differ in its view of God as Almighty Creator? What about the fall of mankind? What about how to be saved? In these concepts, the clearer picture of Orthodoxy emerges.