When one first discovers Orthodoxy it is most likely that they encounter it as being something that is distinctly Eastern, in opposition to something Western. Very often the title “Orthodox Church” is preceded by the moniker “Eastern”, as if to say the two are somehow fundamentally intertwined. Although it’s correct to say that the Orthodox Church has Eastern roots, as the “Great-Schism” took place on the East/West divide, it is not correct to imagine the Orthodox Church as something that has never been, or never can be, Western. St John of Shanghai had this to say;
“Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must be Eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies.”
Unfortunately, the great Saint’s sentiments have not been echoed widely in world Orthodoxy. There is, especially in the West, a deep anti-Western spirit within the Orthodox Church. Defining Orthodoxy over and against “Western” Christianity can lead to a distorted self-concept and false dichotomies. It is also anachronistic to read more recent Western errors into the first millennium. More troubling, it can lead people to have a crisis of faith when one discovers that these constructions of “the West” don’t hold up to scrutiny.1 I want to explore some of the ways this manifests, and hopefully deconstruct some of these imagined issues and false dichotomies. But first. some history.
How Did We Get Here?
Although East vs West polemics go back to before the time of the schism, the modern strand of Orthodox anti-Westernism has it roots in eighteenth century Russia. The ecclesiastical and political reforms of Peter I saw Russia, and by extension, the Russian Orthodox Church, fall under heavy Protestant and Catholic influence.2 By abolishing the Patriarchate, and Latinising the seminaries, Peter I re-imagined Orthodoxy using the template of the West. Now it should be noted, for all intents and purposes, this was a bad thing. Despite the fact I am arguing against anti-Westernism here, there was a real problem with post-schism Protestant/Catholic developments influencing Orthodoxy during this time. However, the reaction against this issue, is how we’ve ended up where we are today; with the opposite problem!
The beginning of this reaction started with the “slavophiles” in the early to mid nineteenth century. This group of philosophers and cultural critics included such figures as Aleksey Khomyakov, Ivan Kireyevsky, and Konstantin Aksakov. Influenced by the writings of Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor Dostoevsky, they sought to rid Russian culture, and Russian Orthodoxy, of Western influence.3
Fast forward a century later, their wishes came to fruition in the Council of Moscow 1917-19194, during which the ROC reestablished the Patriarchate, and proposed widespread reforms that reversed much of the work of Peter I. Unfortunately, due to the Bolshevik revolution, not only was the council cut short and many of the reforms not implemented, much of the Russian intellectual elite were forced out of Russia, and fled to Paris.5 There they set up the Saint Sergius Institute in 1925, which became the world’s leading Orthodox theological school.6
This group of theologians starting with Fr Sergei Bulgakov, P. B. Struve, and Nikolai Berdyaev, gave rise to the neo-patristic movement which produced the most influential theologians of the twentieth century.7 These include such luminaries as; Vladimir Lossky, Fr Georges Florovsky, Fr Lev Gillet, and others. Seeking to correct the mistakes of the earlier slavophiles, but still with the same basic principle, this group of theologians sought to rediscover the Church Fathers and reintegrate Palamism, and in doing so, rid Orthodoxy of Western “rationalism” and “scholasticism”. That being said, their intention was never to be anti-Western per se, and many of them participated in the Ecumenical movement, and even influenced the theology of Vatican II.8 In fact, Florovsky was adamant that the patristic synthesis9 must include the Latin Fathers.
In addition to this, a parallel movement was happening in Greece. Although smaller, these Greek theologians were no less influential. This movement included Christos Yannaras and it’s most prominent figure; Fr John Romanides.10 Going further than the Russian emigre theologians, and with far less nuance, they sought to cut the Western influence of at it’s roots so to speak. And for them, the root of all Western evils, was St Augustine of Hippo. By creating an anti-Augustinian foundation, they attempt to trace all later Western errors, back to the pre-schism era. The result, is essentially a denial of the Orthodoxy of the West in the first millennium.
The results of these movements are mixed.11 On the one hand, Orthodox theology saw a massive revival during the twentieth century, and successfully distinguished itself from the post-enlightenment scholasticism that had developed in the modern West. There are genuine problems with how Western theology has gone, and so all in all it’s a net positive that Orthodoxy has distanced itself from that. It also means that the Church Fathers have been rediscovered and reintegrated in a way that had long been forgotten. On the other hand however, it’s my opinion that it has also led to false constructions of the West, particularly in the first-millennium, and a strong anti-Western spirit that has caused many false dichotomies to appear. Critical engagement with Western theology is very important, but I think in many ways, in an attempt to correct the errors of more recent Protestant and Catholic theology, we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Let’s explore some examples.
Reason, Logic, and Scholasticism
It is often claimed that Orthodox theology is opposed to scholasticism, systemic theology, and the use of reason and logic. Thomas Aquinas is normally named as the scholastic par excellence, symbolically representing all that is wrong with “rationalistic” Western theology. It is claimed that the Orthodox approach to theology is fundamentally different, and that our mystical phronema (mindset) leaves no room for deductive reasoning, logic, or the systematisation of theology. Dr Jeannie Constantinou, summarising the neo-patristic theologian’s attitude on this question, says this;
“Orthodox Christianity does not use deductive reasoning to defend or explain the faith, nor does it attempt to resolve conflicts between faith and reason” (Page 63, Thinking Orthodox)
For Dr Constantinou and many other modern Orthodox theologians, the application of reason to theology is completely foreign to the Orthodox tradition, and that the Western tradition from Augustine onwards has been poisoned by scholasticism and the reliance on Aristotelian logic. This claim however quickly dissolves when one actually reads the Fathers. One has to go searching for differences in theological approach between the Greek and Latin Fathers, because, in fact, there wasn’t one. Even Aquinas and other medieval scholastics saw themselves as a continuation of the patristic tradition, and borrowed heavily from both Western and Eastern Fathers. Dr Marcus Plested, an expert on scholasticism, summarises these issues succinctly, attempting to deconstruct the dichotomy between scholasticism and mysticism;
“Scholasticism is routinely presented as foreign to the Orthodox tradition in modern Orthodox theology. It is depicted as representing the West with its rationalism, legalism, and incipient secularism. But scholasticism has its roots in the Christian East. The Christological controversies gave rise to a concern for theological and philosophical precision, the disciplined use of reason, and recourse to authoritative texts that can hardly be denied the label ‘scholastic’. Whether we look at St Maximus the Confessor on the gnomic will of Christ, St John of Damascus’ great summa the Fount of Knowledge, St Gregory Palamas’ defense of apodictic argumentation and the Latin syllogism, or indeed the anti-Latin syllogisms of St Mark of Ephesus, we see that scholasticism is scarcely foreign to Orthodoxy. We should also note the remarkably positive (if suitably critical) welcome that Thomas Aquinas received in Byzantium after he was translated in 1354 – not least in Palamite and anti-unionist circles.” (Between Rigorism and Relativism: The Givenness of Tradition)12
Additionally, one can hardly make sense of logic if it is not an apprehension of the logos in creation. Logic is possible because creation is rational and ordered. Much like mathematics, logic is a mind independent reality. Now, it is certainly the case the human rationality is limited due to fallen human nature, and so we recognise the limitations of logic, and also affirm that God transcends logical categories and deductive reasoning. We also suggest that philosophy and other forms of reasoning are submitted to revelation.13 Nonetheless, the Orthodox Church has always used the best of human reasoning in its theology.14
Apophatic vs Cataphatic Theology
It is sometimes claimed that the East does apophatic theology, and that the West does cataphatic theology, and that the two approaches are fundamentally different. Apophatic theology is theology by way of negation- ruling out what God is not.15 Cataphatic theology is positive theology- making statements about what God is.16 This is another false dichotomy between East and West. Although post-Reformation Western theology has gone in funny directions, embracing theistic personalism17, the classical theist tradition in the West still affirms a proper level of apophaticism. Take this quote from Aquinas for example;
“Because we cannot know what God is, but only what He is not, we cannot consider how He is but only how He is not.” (Summa Theologica)
Additionally, although the Fathers (both Greek and Latin) placed a great emphasis on apophatic theology, as it protects the absolute transcendence and ineffability of God’s essence, we can still say something about God. Due to His self-revelation in Jesus Christ, and His activities in creation, we can make positive affirmations about God, as long as we understand them to be analogical, and by no way describing God’s essence;
“Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy.” (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 9, St John of Damascus)
Original Sin
If one asks the average Orthodox Christian about original sin, they would probably confidently explain that we don’t believe in original sin as taught by Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church. They teach that all humans inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, but we believe that we only inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin. The Orthodox doctrine is called ancestral sin, which is fundamentally different than original sin. The only issue with this explanation, is that it is completely untrue.18 The Catechism of the Catholic Church states;
“By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.” (CCC, article 404)
Still, those who wish to separate East and West on this issue will appeal to St Augustine, claiming that he taught the inheritance of the guilt of Adam. Whilst it’s true that Augustine uses the word guilt, he doesn’t mean personal culpability. Instead of culpa, he uses the Latin word reatus. Although both words can be translated as guilt, they have distinct meanings in Roman law. Whilst culpa is personal culpability, reatus is the state of accusation. Augustine’s understanding therefore is that we are guilty by association, and are thus subject to the punishments of the original crime (sin), even though we bear no personal responsibility.19
“However, it is called sin, not in such a way that it makes us guilty, but because it is the result of the guilt of the first man and because by rebelling it strives to draw us to guilt” (Augustine, Earlier Writings)
Not only is this concept present in many of the other Latin Fathers including St Hilary of Poitiers and St Ambrose of Milan20, it is also present in the Greek Fathers, namely St Cyril of Alexandria;
“For the whole nature of man became guilty in the person of him who was first formed; but now it is wholly justified again in Christ.” (Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke)21
By attempting to explain ancestral sin in contradistinction to Augustine’s treatment of the subject, we risk shooting ourselves in the foot by tearing out a valid part our tradition, leading to an anaemic concept of “the Fall”, and a loss of the full purpose of baptism.22
The Atonement
I have critiqued reformed understandings of the atonement in my article ‘Why I'm Not a Protestant’. It should be said however, that previous iterations of so-called substitutionary atonement models are not only perfectly Orthodox, but not exclusively Western. Anselm of Canterbury is often condemned by modern Orthodox theologians for his understanding of the atonement, but I am afraid that they are mostly conflating his model for John Calvin’s penal substitution theory. Calvin’s PSA is essentially a distortion of Anselm’s theory.23 Anselm is primarily concerned with Christ’s death as payment for the debt of love and honour that is due to God by His creatures. Calvin however, takes this concept but instead inserts the idea that Christ bears the wrath of God as punishment for our sins, satisfying God’s justice. Both models include a concept of satisfaction and substitution, but are subtlety different in their explanation of what that means. Additionally, the medieval scholastics explicitly avoided a legalistic explanation of this satisfaction.24
Okay, but what is the Orthodox approach? Doesn’t the Church exclusively teach the Christus Victor model?25 Well, yes and no. It should be noted that many scholars believe that Christ’s victory over death, sin, and demonic rule, is the primary way that the Church Fathers explained the atonement.26 Also, in some sense, all other models can potentially be integrated into “Christus Victor”. However, this was not the only way the atonement was understood. Consider the following from St Athanasius by way of example;
“And Psalms 88 and 69, again speaking in the Lord’s own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. Thou has made Thy wrath to rest upon me, says the one; and the other adds, I paid them things I never took. For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses.” (Letter to Marcellenius)
One can hardly deny that the atonement is being expressed here in legal terms, with reference to penalty and substitution. One could even say that Athanasius here is closer to Calvin than to Anselm. Ultimately, the Bible and the Fathers use a variety of images and models for understanding the atonement and Christ’s salvific work more broadly.27 Much of intra-Protestant debates about the atonement come from an obsession with finding the perfect model, and attempting to explain the mechanism by which the atonement is affected. This is misguided however, and we risk doing the same by casually dismissing “Western” models of the atonement.
Salvation
Related to this, it is sometimes claimed that we have a radically different understanding of salvation to the West. The Orthodox Church teaches that salvation is theosis, and the West teaches salvation is by way of faith and/or works. Apparently, neither explanation is compatible, and that the legal terminology is reprehensible to the Orthodox mind. Although the Orthodox Church has never had the same faith vs works debate as has taken place in the West, it absolute recognises the legitimacy of this language. It is after all, Biblical language;
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:14-17)
Whilst it is true that the Protestant concept of salvation has almost entirely collapsed into a legal ‘one-time-event’ understanding of justification, the same cannot be said of the Catholic Church, at least on an official level. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following;
“The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."" (CCC, article 460)
Considering the fact it quotes the famous line by St Athanasius which is often used as a summary of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, it can’t exactly be claimed that we are fundamentally opposed here. Now one could certainly point out, and I have previously, that deification has all but been forgotten by Catholic theologians from the medieval scholastics onwards, but there is no fundamental difference in doctrine here.
What is Sin?
It is sometimes claimed, usually without evidence, that the Western conception of sin is completely different from ours. The Orthodox see sin as a spiritual disease in need of healing, whereas the West see sin as merely a transgression of a moral law. Whilst its true that since the Reformation, Western Christianity has become increasingly legalistic, we once again risk jettisoning a valid part of our tradition for fear of sounding too Western;
“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness”. (John 3:4)
Equally, the Western tradition isn’t bereft of any sense of disease and healing. Aquinas, when speaking about the sacrament of unction says this;
“Hence the chief object of the institution of this sacrament is to cure the sickness of sin. (Summa Theologica)
Additionally, it’s often claimed that the Orthodox make no distinction between venial and mortal sin. One too often comes across the axiom “sin is sin” in Orthodox circles. Whilst there is no legalistic explanation of these distinctions in Orthodoxy, its rather absurd to proclaim the equality of all sins;
“For not for all sins are there the same punishments, but many and diverse, according to the times, according to the persons, according to their rank, according to their understanding, according to other things besides”. (Homily 75 on Matthews Gospel, St John Chrysostom)
Wrath and Punishment
“God doesn’t punish”. “God doesn’t send people to hell”. “God isn’t wrathful”. These are all things I’ve heard come out the mouths of Orthodox Christians. Wrath and punishment are labelled as Western and not Orthodox, probably as a reaction to Protestant “fire and brimstone” preaching that we in the West are all too familiar with. Although it is fair to say that in some quarters of Protestantism these themes have been pushed too far, when properly understood, they are completely Orthodox. Forgive me, but I think the reason that well meaning Orthodox Christians can say these things is due to a lack of familiarity with the Bible. Let’s look at some examples.
"The Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies." (Nahum 1:2)
"For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" (Revelation 6:17)
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night." (Revelation 14:11)
“They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" (Matthew 25:41)
"But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgement will be revealed." (Romans 2:5)
"The Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8)
My point here is not to scare anyone or to create an unbalanced theological picture, but it is to prove that wrath and punishment are fearful realities.28 They of course, need to be put in the context of God’s love and holiness, but for us as creatures, we could experience this love and holiness as wrath and punishment.
Punishment vs Healing
One of the themes running through this article is a dichotomy between legal and therapeutic language. The problem with this dichotomy is that punishment and healing are not opposing realities or concepts. For example, a drug addict attempting to wean himself off of drugs will experience a painful penalty for his actions that will surely feel like punishment. Nonetheless, he is also be healed of his afflictions, and is transformed in the process.
It should also be recognised that both the Bible and the Fathers use a mix of legal and therapeutic language, so to posit priority of one over the other, or to claim that one is Western and one is Eastern, is severely misguided and theologically dangerous. I would argue that much of post-schism Western theology has gone wrong precisely by prioritising one over the other. We should be careful we don’t do the same. One may have a conceptual preference, but ontologically, these realities are equal.
The Western Rite
For us Orthodox, worship is where the rubber meets the road. It’s all good and fine pointing out that some of our theological constructions of the West are untrue, but that does little good if it doesn’t change how we act. The modern movement to recover the Western Rite started with Overbeck in 1865 in England, and has gone through many failed iterations in various countries since then.29 By far the most successful project has been the current Western Rite Vicariate under the Antiochian Archdiocese in America.30
Despite this success, the Western Rite finds itself scorned and dismissed by most Orthodox Christians today. This is the “on the ground” result of anti-Westernism. Everything that looks or feels Western is treated with suspicion. One places things like statues, organs, pews, or the rosary, in the category “Western”, and dismisses them on that basis. It is my belief that the Orthodox Church has a responsibility to recover what we lost after the schism. We lost our Western liturgy and spirituality, we lost our Latin patrimony, we lost our Western Christian culture. On what basis do we deny ourselves the recovery of our Western heritage? If we truly are the catholic Church, we should seek to express the fullness of our tradition.31 After all, we believe that Holy Tradition is the work of the Holy Spirit, so we ought not be so casual about losing any aspect of it, no matter something as important as the Western liturgy.
Conclusion
For all of the emphasis on the Fathers within Orthodox theology, sometimes I wonder if the perpetrators of these false East/West dichotomies have actually read the Fathers! I’m not sure how you come away from reading the diversity of treatments on various Biblical and theological themes and think that somehow there is one “Eastern” perspective and one “Western” perspective which are irreconcilable. Leaving aside some of the problematic developments in Western theology in more recent history, when one looks to first millennium, one must look at the Latin and Greek parts of the Church as being equally Orthodox. In fact, one could argue that whilst heresy was commonplace in the East, until its capitulation on the Frankish filioque, Rome was a bastion of Orthodoxy. I think it was benefit us significantly if we seek to recover a more holistic patristic theology by rehabilitating the Latin patrimony and Western liturgy, and in doing so, discovering that Orthodoxy is as much Western, as it is Eastern.
NB: Everything expressed in this article is merely my opinion, and should not be taken as authoritative in any way. I am not a bishop, nor a saint, nor an academic, nor a spiritual father. If anything I say contradicts the teachings of your bishop, ignore me, and follow him. Additionally, all my articles are living documents, and so may be updated or refined over time, as I learn more, or discover better ways of articulating my points.
This unfortunately happened to me. I was very close at one point to converting to Catholicism as I felt it had a better sense that Christianity is both Western and Eastern, and that the differences between the two weren’t so large. The primary reason (amongst other things I outline this article) I ultimately stayed Orthodox was the lack of evidence for the Papacy.
The Orthodox Faith, Vol III Church History, Fr Thomas Hopko
Slavophilia, Wikipedia
The Orthodox Faith, Vol III Church History, Fr Thomas Hopko
St. Sergius Institute, Wikipedia
REVISITING THE AGENDA OF THE NEO-PATRISTIC MOVEMENT, Viorel Coman
John Romanides, Wikipedia
Passing Beyond the Neo-Patristic Synthesis, Fr John Behr
Between Rigorism and Relativism: The Givenness of Tradition, Dr Marcus Plested
For an accessible summary of the relationship between philosophy and theology I would suggest this video.
Not Without a Guide: The Role of Reason in the Orthodox Tradition, Todd Trembley
Apophatic theology, Wikipedia
Cataphatic theology, Wikipedia
For a good critique of theistic personalism, I would recommend this article by Fr Aidan Kimel.
For a comprehensive treatment that is beyond the scope of this article, I would recommend this article by Eric Lozano: Original and Ancestral Sin: A Church Dividing Issue?
The Origins of Original Sin, Part VI: Further Augustinian Doctrine: Juridical Aspects, Daniel J. Castellano
Ancestral/Original Sin, Eric Lozano
For a scholarly treatment, see Inherited Guilt in Ss. Augustine and Cyril.
Christian Orthodox Baptism, Serbian Orthodox Church of the Holy Prince Lazar
Satisfaction theory of atonement, Wikipedia
"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin." (Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas)
Christus Victor, Wikipedia
This is famously argued by Gustaf Aulén in his book ‘Christus Victor’, and has even been controversially adopted by the popular Protestant theologian N.T Wright in his ‘New Perspectives on Paul’, which is ironically, the old perspective on Paul.
The Wrath of God, Fr Stephen De Young
A Condensed History of the Orthodox Western Rite, V Rev Edward Hughes
This article is a good apologia for the Western Rite.