East of Eden

Some time ago, I answered a question on what might draw nominally Reformed Christians to Eastern Orthodoxy. Other points could also be made, but this provides some perspective for those thinking about how to engage with Eastern Orthodoxy and its apologists:

1. Ecclesiastically, Eastern Orthodoxy is less centralized than Rome yet still has a hierarchy, meaning there isn't as much of a barrier to entry to the former as to the latter.

2. Because Eastern Orthodoxy is less centralized (and, in the U.S., less prominent), it is less apparent to outsiders how the inside truly looks or operates, warts and all. This is all the more true when I hear of Eastern Orthodoxy congregations which experience functional segregation due to distinctive cultural backgrounds of said congregants (read: Galatians 2). It is easy to romanticize the unfamiliar.

Further, Rome's councils and popes are constantly in the news as going the way of modernism. I don't read much news, but from what I see, Eastern Orthodoxy isn't as exposed. Former insiders to Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g. Joshua Schooping; see his free ebook here) are relatively unknown - at least, they unknown prior to one's converting to Eastern Orthodoxy - and becoming aware of such insiders after one converts might be too late (rationalizations set in). This is not unique to Eastern Orthodoxy, but they are not immune to it either.

3. Eastern Orthodox apologists and theologians largely stake their position on appeals to ecumenical councils or theologians whose theology is said to ground statements by ecumenical councils (Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus, John of Damascus, and Palamas being most prominent, if I am not mistaken).

Examples of fallacies to watch out for: because they are called ecumenical councils, they must be biblical councils. Equally fallacious: because some ecumenical councils are biblically grounded, one must accept that all others are too.

On the point of tradition, church history, etc., just like anyone else, people who claim to be Reformed can fall suspect to attempts to excuse their prior ignorance. For example: "church history is not in monolithic support of Reformed theology; I must have been ignorant/tricked; there must be a true monolith that is different from my prior (Reformed) conception." This is a non sequitur, but more importantly, the reason the fallacy occurs in the first place is because people have a false, a priori impression of how church history is supposed to look (monolithic). This assumption is the root of the problem; a symptom is to elevate historical theology above exegetical theology.

Of course, Reformed theology as such isn't anti-historical, although Reformed individuals could do a better job of having awareness of and emphasizing important events in church history on which we might find agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g. Christology, Trinitarianism). In principle, however, these are not distinctives which mark off Eastern Orthodoxy. Rather, I find those distinctives which do mark off Eastern Orthodoxy to be problematic (e.g. anthropology and theology proper; cf. link).

4. I have noticed recently that Eastern Orthodox apologists are willing to copy, for example, Reformed presuppositionalism. Despite the fact they are inconsistent when they do so (link), such will appeal to the "have your cake (apologetic) and eat it too (monolithic church history)" audience.

Another illustration of this is a recent trend in which Eastern Orthodox apologists are willing to suggest that penal substitution is, in some sense, true. Here is one video to this effect. As I pointed out in a comment I left on this video (to which I have no reason to expect an answer forthcoming), there is a seeming inconsistency in this appeal. If the Eastern Orthodox apologist really thinks Jesus tasted the penalty of sin for all men [without exception], how is it just for the damned to nevertheless experience the same penalty? 

Likewise, the Eastern Orthodox apologist in the video mentions that in the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve experienced alienation "from each other." But surely - and conspicuously left unmentioned by the Eastern Orthodox apologist - the principal alienation they experience is alienation from God! Surely this is the death of which God spoke even prior to Eve's creation in Genesis 2:17. If Jesus participates in "the deepest experience of our alienation," does that mean the Eastern Orthodox apologist thinks Jesus likewise experience this alienation - alienation from His own Father? I am unaware of any Eastern Orthodox apologists who admit this. The usual claim is that penal substitution is Nestorian (link). To the extent that Eastern Orthodox apologists shortchange the penalty Christ undertook on our behalf, they don't really accept penal substitution after all. Nuances like this might easily go unnoticed by converts.

5. Reformed theologians have - by and large - polemically ignored Eastern Orthodox theologians. Sure, there may be an article here or single chapter there that in a journal or book that gets lost in the mix of what the focus of a publication really is. Rarely have I seen a prominent Reformed theologian or pastor debate or engage in a book-length treatment of Eastern Orthodoxy. Compare this to the many popular polemical works against Roman Catholicism.

Obviously, there is a history that somewhat dictates a larger interest in justifying Reformed separation from Rome. On the other hand, in the next century, I could easily see it turn out that Eastern Orthodoxy poses a bigger poaching threat to Reformed churches than Rome. In that respect, it would be better for our apologetics to look to future threats instead of looking back at old ones.

Then again, this is admittedly tricky. What you don't want to have happen is something like what happens in the 1880s-1890s with higher criticism, where The Princeton Review gave a platform to heretics to debate their false doctrines and thereby legitimate/popularize them. 

Of course, this is somewhat reductionistic - there were other reasons for the increase in popularity of higher criticism, e.g. that seminaries were sending candidates oversees to Germany for training in the first place - but I don't see any reason to invite a heretic to a debate on my home turf. The best that could be hoped for is that people become more confident or assured that Reformed theology can handle heretics - it can, but a verbal debate isn't the only mode of communication to show that (let alone the best mode). The worst that can happen is that more people become intrigued with a faulty religion held by a fraction of the population.

Along these lines, it was wise of Bahnsen to debate Stein - in a secular university where he was in the minority and when was able to ably defend his position. In that context, it's really only Bahnsen who could hope for the popularization of his view. So would it be wise of a Reformed theologian to debate an Eastern Orthodox? In my mind, it depends on context. 

Perhaps publications (or, less plausibly, conferences) are safer in terms of established ways of getting information out. Written works are more likely to have less pomp and circumstance and more usefulness in the long-run. In any case, resources on Eastern Orthodoxy by Reformed Christians are scarcer to the layman than resources on most other heresies (even ones smaller in number). Again, this reduces the barrier to entry.

6. I think there are legitimate questions of Reformed theology that are more deserving of robust answers than are currently available. For example, the question of artistry in the church. Is it wrong to desire a beautified church? I don't think so. Was it wrong that the temple was beautified? Is there a typological case for a beautified church, an adorned bride (link)? Is there something to the idea of wearing one's "Sunday best"? 

Obviously, I'm not talking about venerating icons, whether images of Christ can be created, etc. I'm talking about whether the physical construction and layout of a church can be deliberately made attractive. I think this is a legitimate question, even if it is not a legitimate desire. I myself have never heard a good reason why it is an illegitimate desire.

If a congregant has this question, how often is it that his pastor (who, let's say, thinks it is an illegitimate desire) is giving a good answer to this question? Is it a good answer to simply appeal to what Puritans thought without also expressing their reasons (let alone whether those reasons are biblical)? Is it a good answer to say that the purpose of a "simple" church layout is to avoid distractions? This sounds as if I were to tell my students I can't decorate my classroom because they would be too immature to handle it when I'm lecturing.

I'm not judging churches whose attention has never considered its décor. In fact, my own classroom actually happens to be simple. There are ecclesiastical (and work-related) priorities, after all. Over time, though, one might expect the church to answer how God's people should present themselves: humbly yet aware of its clothing of glory in Christ. Externals should match internals. There may be an implicit eschatology in these points.

Just like Eastern Orthodox apologists are becoming more aware of and willing to copy presuppositional arguments, they are also becoming more aware of Protestant resources on biblical theology - including but not limited to the more rampant speculations of federal visionists - and pivoting the same arguments to the need for a "higher liturgy." Yes, we must avoid the errors of federal visionism, but we must also understand the motivations for the questions they raised before we throw out everything they say. That includes understanding the need for a developed hermeneutic of typology that avoids the extreme of Marsh's dictum on the one hand and runaway typology on the other. Does such exist? 

That I even ask this question suggests a lacuna, although I could well be ignorant: perhaps Reformed Christians have given good answers to these sorts of questions. Then again, that is sort of the point: if I'm ignorant, I can understand why others might be as well. 

Further, the principle of this point is that regarding some questions, I think we would do well to respond with a measure of pause and grace. If this so happens to be a question that has an obvious answer, there are still other questions and questioners which and who don't deserve a slam-dunk response. Most people don't like getting dunked on, even with the truth.

7. A final point that dovetails with what I just said: it's okay not to have all the answers at the time these questions are raised. Answers to questions often are discovered over time. Contrary to the claims of Eastern Orthodox apologists, Scripture is materially and formally sufficient to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, sola fide, etc., but until such heresies arise that require sharper focus in how we answer them, it is often the case that questions that go unasked also go unanswered.

These considerations are not all equally easy to see or deal with. Until people are settled enough in their assurance of Reformed theology to believe that - and to tactfully and truthfully project that confidence in the presence of others who are not - it is objectively unsurprising (if personally unsettling) that the whiff of a new wind of a new doctrine or question might carry some away from the faith.