Missiological Implications of Payton's Approach

For the past couple of weeks, I've been posting about James Payton's Light from the Christian East. On Facebook & Twitter as well as a few comments posted on this blog, there have been some strong reactions to Eastern Orthodoxy's tenets and whether they can really be called Christian. I still think Payton's book is a good starting point for anyone wanting to learn more about Orthodoxy or beginning to work in a predominant Orthodox culture. The strength of Payton’s approach is his historical perspective, something that is often lost in many interfaith conversation. He does a good job in explaining several of the key differences  between the diverging perspectives that generated as the East and the West (pardon the pun) went their own ways. This historical lens is necessary for the Eastern and Western missiological dialogue.

However, I also admit that Payton also exhibits several weaknesses in my opinion. Payton arguably places too much emphasis on the differences between Eastern and Western theologies. It is true that the historical contexts of each have led to a diversification in development, but he seems to embellish them to make his point. In a surprisingly naive way, he seems to stereotype all of Eastern Orthodoxy with the same beliefs, not allowing for varying views within the faith. He does the same with Western Protestantism. At times he makes the Eastern Church affirm the same things that the Western Church also affirms, but he identifies them as unique stances. In truth, there are simply some theological points that bind us together and other points that differentiate us.

I also disagree with Payton’s presumption that Eastern Orthodoxy encompasses all of Eastern Christianity. In doing so, I believe Payton fails to take into account the various other non-Orthodox Christian movements that have sprung up throughout history in Eastern Europe as well as the non-Orthodox divisions out of the officially sanctioned church. Albeit the numbers are significantly smaller than Protestants of Western Christianity, there have been some other Christian groups that exist besides Orthodoxy. It seems the very reason why the Protestant movement is included with the Roman Catholic Church in Western Christianity should give warrant to include the sectarian groups of the East. Having spent 13 years with evangelicals from the East gives me pause to simply whitewash the Eastern church as being stereotyped.

            Yet another significant missiological weakness is his blind insistence that both Eastern and Western Christian perspectives are equally valid. Without a biblical point of reference, he asserts that the “Orthodox approaches are legitimate interpretations of biblical revelation” (108). This seems to contradict the historical evidence that the two views are polarized on many points. Where there are areas for dialogue, a complete merging of the two without regard for theology is ecclesiologically dangerous at best and a negation of theology at worst. Or have we truly come to the point where every point of view is equally valid?

            Regardless of these weaknesses, Payton’s book is definitely useful as an introduction to the Eastern Church and for understanding its doctrines and practices. Payton argues that Orthodoxy can help the West overcome its own sabotaging wording in the creation-evolution debate. He believes it can deepen our recognition of the distance between God and his creation. He also believes that Orthodox can help make us aware of our own cultural mandate by appreciating creation’s holistic purpose for communion with God. The unique value of the text is how Payton ties human history to Christian theology. As such it is a worthy read with more than just academic significance.

How Orthodox View Salvation

James Payton gives a glimpse into how Orthodox Christians view their salvation. He bases his study on the eastern and western differences in soteriology on the doctrine of grace. He believes that the West has placed the bulk of its concentration on grace in the aspect of “what grace does, how it operates upon us, the effects it has on believers and so forth” (156). Conversely, the Eastern Church has taken a different slant by looking at what grace is. This is probably one of the biggest differences between the two branches of Christianity albeit probably one of the least dialogically explored.

            The eastern soteriological stance is more one of belonging while the western mindset developed more toward a utilitarian actualization of grace. This is useful as Western Christian theology rarely raises the question of the essence of grace. The soteriological aspect of grace is much more than its outworking, and the eastern historical development has contributed a welcomed perspective to the dialogue. Arguably, much of eastern soteriology is entertained in western conversations about sanctification, but western soteriology usually does not begin there.

            Certain church fathers have influenced both Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Evangelicalism. Modern Orthodoxy has been influenced most significantly by Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas. These theologians put a bigger emphasis on man's interaction with God's energies over His essence than those who influenced the west. Western theologians have tended to relate more to the actual redemptive outworking of salvation in man when he communes with a Holy God. 

            As already posted, the eastern Christian sees salvation as a corrective action designed to realign the human journey to enjoy more of God's energies. The western Christian sees salvation as an act of substitutionary atonement wherein a man is completely changed from the inside and is protected from God's wrath. So, if salvation for the eastern Christian is a metaphysical experience with manifestations of God's power, and if salvation for the western Christian is a transformational work in man, can the two really discuss soteriology without defining what salvation really means? When an eastern Christian says, "Jesus saves," what does he mean? When a western Christian uses the same words, what does he mean? Perhaps the East could benefit greatly from Luther's atonement constructs, and the West could be informed greatly from Gregory Palamas' images of communion.

Eastern Orthodox Doctrine of Sin

On Wednesday I introduced a brief overview of how Eastern Orthodoxy has historically differed from western evangelicalism in its view of God the Father. The historical division between the East and the West led to differences in the doctrine of sin as well. According to Orthodoxy, the impact of the fall of man was to detour God’s purposes for creation, and somehow Jesus corrected that. Orthodoxy now tends to take a more holistic approach in its doctrine of man.

The Eastern view of the human body comes into play within this historical development. For the Orthodox, the physical body “is a visible form that uniquely matches the invisible divine glory (although God has no body)” (James Payton, Light from the Christian East, 107- Kindle Edition Here). Although Orthodoxy differentiates between the image of God in man, which is a gift, and the likeness of God, which is a calling empowered by the Holy Spirit, the fall of man had some unique issues. Payton says we are “inescapably surrounded” (112) by these dying circumstances, and therefore we are influenced to sin. Orthodoxy denies that our human nature is depraved, something that radically differs from the historical development of John Calvin's teaching about man's total depravity.

The East also developed a new slant in terms of imputation of sin. Because Orthodoxy does not believe that anyone pays for any sin but their own, Adam’s sin is seen as just that, Adam’s sin. According to Orthodoxy, “no one can be guilty of another’s sin” (111). Sinfulness is not imputed in Orthodox harmatology, but all creation has inherited death as a consequence. Because of this, we have inherited physical corruption and everything that goes with it. However, “none of us bears or suffers from a depraved, corrupt or sinful human nature, according to Orthodoxy” (114). Thus, it is natural for humans by default to do good, but because of our external circumstances, we are influenced to do bad. Whereas the West tends to portray sin as breaking the rules, the East views it as a “violation of a personal relationship with God” (119).

So, is it either/or? Is it both/and? What effect does an understanding of sin have on truth? on salvation?