Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy and scripture

Geography and Cold War politics have meant that for most of their respective histories Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy have had little to do with each other, but nowadays these Christian groups are crossing each others’ paths more than ever. In the light of this the Evangelical Alliance (EA) research body The Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals (ACUTE) published a report entitled Evangelicalism and the Orthodox Church which looked at the differences between the two groups and suggests ways for further dialogue to take place.

Recent comments over at Emergentno, which trashed both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as being ‘false religions’ and ‘unbiblical’ led me to re-read the EA’s report on the two groups. Though it has to be said that such broad and ill thought out remarks reflect more on those making the statements than the actual targets themselves, it would do no harm for evangelicals and the Orthodox to at least understand where the other group comes from. I would like to make clear at this point however that I by no means endorse the position of Emergentno on the matter.

Evangelicals sometimes tend to reject Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the grounds that they are unbiblical and rely on ‘tradition’ whereas Evangelicals rely on the Bible alone and insist only upon the ‘authority of scripture’ as a rule for doctrine and practice, although it may be argued that by ‘the authority of scripture’ they often really mean ‘the authority of evangelical theology’ and don’t really unpack what they mean by such ambiguous statements. The authority of scripture is a complex idea and by no means allows us to reduce the basis for theology and practice to a few scriptural imperatives or proof-texts.  

But how do we relate the ideas of revelation, scripture, the church, tradition, God, and so on in relationship to Orthodoxy and evangelicalism? For the rest of this post I’m just going to attempt to summarise the EA’s chapter on Scripture and Tradition and look at how the two traditions treat scripture and how they place scripture in their overall theological framework.  

1. The importance of scripture  

Both the Orthodox and Evangelicals have a high view of scripture, though the situations in which their doctrines of scripture are very different, and this is reflected in their view of scripture. The Orthodox (for example) have not been caught up in debates about the divine origin of scripture or liberal scepticism, unlike their Evangelical counterparts. Consequently “an exalted regard for the authority of the Bible has never been a distinctive badge of Orthodoxy, as it has been for Evangelicalism.”[1]

Orthodoxy perhaps has less of a systematic doctrine of scripture than Evangelicalism, but scripture is given very high regard nonetheless. There is no central statement of the Orthodox position on scripture that speaks for all Orthodox of all times and places, but the EA turns to the catechism of St. Philaret (read online here) on the subject, as his views are widely held in the Orthodox church, particularly in the Russian Orthodox Church

Philaret holds that scripture comprises “certain books written by the Spirit of God through men sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles”,[2] and whilst maintaining that the deuterocanonical books are useful, they ought not to be considered part of the canon. Not all Orthodox would agree on this point but even those who would include them in the canon would not consider them to have the same level of importance as the other Old Testament books.

Scripture is taken seriously by the Orthodox, despite the perceptions of some evangelicals. Philaret’s Catechism speaks of the Psalms as being ‘the perfect manual for prayer and praise’[3] and of the Gospels as being testimony to “the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, of his advent and life on earth, of his miracles and saving doctrine, and finally, of his death on the cross, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven[4]…there could be no more better nor more joyful tidings than these, of a Divine Saviour and everlasting salvation.”[5] It is difficult to conceive of any reason why evangelicals would disagree with these statements, and the EA itself affirms that this Orthodox doctrine of scripture would “gladden an evangelical heart”[6] and that it affirms and agrees with both the doctrines of the EA in the UK and the National Association of Evangelicals in the USA as regards scripture.

2. Scripture, revelation and tradition  

In some evangelical circles, words like ‘tradition’ are viewed with suspicion and are guaranteed to send the faithful scrambling for matches, firewood and pitchforks in order to put an end to the heresy as soon as possible. It’s easy to quote (often with no further elaboration) texts like Mark 7:13 about the traditions of men nullifying the word of God and then use these texts as a basis to dismiss 'tradition' out of hand. There are two serious problems with this attitude however. First of all, it frequently assumes that evangelicals themselves have no traditions or ‘doctrines of men’, and secondly it neglects that tradition is something scripture itself speaks of, and to dismiss tradition is to reject huge swathes of church history and doctrine on which the modern church stands (one might also call into question the credibility of those who claim to take the Bible seriously and yet who are quite happy to use texts about Jesus and the Pharisees as though they were written about the Orthodox, with absolutely no regard for exegetical common sense whatsoever). The EA are nonetheless critical of the Orthodox for believing that theology and practice can remain uncorrupted and unchanged from the time of the Apostles, though in fairness they are equally as critical of evangelicals who see an unbroken and pure Christianity going back through history, only with the Reformation as the starting point.[7] Both sides need to recognise the ongoing need for change, renewal, and rethinking in their theology and study of scripture.

While Orthodox and Evangelicals may agree on the divine inspiration of the Bible, differences begin to appear when we examine the place scripture and revelation holds within the overall theological framework of both groups. According to the EA:

“Evangelicals sometimes give the impression that the goal of salvation-history was the production of a book. If pressed they acknowledge that behind the Bible lies that history, in Israel and in Christ, in which divine revelation and salvation were accomplished once and for all. Yet in their insistence that Scripture now remains the only means of access to that original salvation-history and its God-given meaning, they have often spoken of scripture itself as a divine revelation. It is the uniquely divinely warranted record and interpretation of the original revelation and as such partakes of the character of divine revelation itself.”[8]

Orthodoxy would also affirm the idea of scripture as a record of divine revelation, and Philaret also affirms that the Bible was given

“so that the divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably [...] In Holy Scriptures we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them and listening to them.”[9] The difference between Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism is that it distinguishes between divine revelation and scripture. Divine revelation is bigger and more diverse than the scriptures themselves, and indeed scripture (which as we have seen, is supremely important) is spoken of as one of the ‘two channels’ of divine revelation, the other being ‘holy tradition.’

There is then a distinction in Orthodoxy between divine scripture and divine revelation and undoubtedly many evangelical eyebrows are raised by the mentioning of terms like ‘holy tradition’ but before responding it would be worth examining precisely what the Orthodox mean by this. The Orthodox defines tradition in three main ways:

i) Tradition (note capital T) – this is “the Gospel of God’s self revelation and self-giving in Christ, transmitted down the generations in and by the Church in its preaching of the word, its ministry of the sacraments, its witness and service.”[10] The Orthodox point out (a point many evangelicals may have overlooked) that the Tradition of salvation history and God’s self-revelation in Christ existed before the scriptures did. Jesus himself wrote nothing, and the biblical stories happened as events and were preserved in oral tradition prior to the time that they were recorded in the biblical texts. Thus the Tradition of God’s self-revelation and his redemptive mission existed prior to the scriptures. For this reason, scripture is to be interpreted and viewed in the light of this Tradition; it is not a stand-alone divine document from which we may derive whatever doctrines we pleased.

ii) tradition (small t) – the process of teaching, developing, and communicating the Tradition, the history of God’s self-revelation to humanity.

iii) traditions (plural, small t) – are the different forms or confessions through which faith is expressed and lived out. These would include ‘traditions’ like Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism, and so on.

The contention between evangelicals and Orthodox becomes clearer when there is discussion over where one should place scripture in this system of Tradition, tradition, and traditions. Is the Bible part of the work of Christ and his chosen Apostles and thus a part of the Tradition? (Most evangelicals would agree with this statement) Or is the Bible part of the tradition of the Church, being as it was not completed, compiled or formally agreed upon until well into the history of the Church? (This would be the Orthodox assertion).

It is at least clear that the Orthodox understanding of tradition is infinitely more complex and developed than many evangelicals would give it credit for. It will not do simply to appeal to biblical texts that talk about Jesus criticism of the ‘tradition’ of the Pharisees as though that were somehow sufficient to refute the Church tradition of which the scriptures are a huge part. The EA report highlights the reasons for this flaw in evangelical thinking:

“There are subtle depths to the Orthodox understanding of Tradition and of Scripture’s place in it which evangelicals are likely to find difficult to fathom. This is partly because they have been reared with an instinctive dichotomy in their minds between Scripture and tradition, shaped by controversy with Rome; we have seen that not all Orthodox operate with such a dichotomy (neither, for that matter, neither do many modern Catholics).”[11]

For the Orthodox, the ‘holy tradition’ is not merely a system for the transmission of information and teaching about the Tradition, rather:

“The Tradition is carried by, embodied in and in a true sense identified with the Orthodox Church. It is contained in Scripture but also on the Liturgy, the writings of the Fathers and the deliverances of the seven Ecumenical Councils […] but these do not exhaust what Orthodoxy holds as sacrosanct.”[12]

Although Philaret spoke of revelation in “two channels” (i.e. tradition and scripture) but most Orthodox would see Tradition as coming in a single stream through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit inspired the scriptures, the Spirit enlivens the Church, the Spirit reveals Christ, and the Spirit makes manifest the authority of God. The Spirit works through the Fathers, through the liturgies, through the councils and those who have set out to teach and preach the Tradition. God’s work is not preserved and experienced not only in texts, but in practices and in the worshipping life of the community that is in living continuity with the Apostles by sharing in the Holy Spirit.

Doubtless there are many Orthodox doctrines such as the mediation of grace through sacraments, the apostolic succession of bishops, and the reverencing of Mary and the saints and the efficacy of prayers for the departed (which are very different to RC prayers for the departed) which many evangelicals would condemn as unbiblical (although none of these practices have actually been ratified as dogma by any church council).  Orthodox would disagree with evangelicals at this point, and insist that all doctrines have a biblical basis, and that such doctrines may be inferred from scripture even if they are not explicitly stated (although evangelicals may hold doctrines that are not explicitly taught in the Bible such as biblical inerrancy, they infer them like the Orthodox) though doctrines and practices only implied by scripture will always be called into questions by others. It should also be made very clear at this point that unlike the RC church, the Orthodox have not allowed the ‘development’ of doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary.[13]

3. Scripture and the Church  

The idea of church consensus on scripture does not hold the weight it does in evangelical church life, and indeed may seem like a completely alien idea to evangelicals not familiar with Orthodoxy. The EA again note that the Reformed Church, which arose out of division with the corrupt RC church of the Middle Ages, derived its appeal ‘to scripture alone’ in the face of this historical crisis. The Reformers were appealing to scripture against what they saw as a corruption of the Gospel by the RCC, but the tragedy is that many evangelicals have simply remained in the sixteenth century and merely developed a new tradition, and should equally be open to further reform and renewal. Those who would wish to criticise the Orthodox in this way are reminded that “none of Evangelicalism’s own traditions are exempt from the scrutiny of ‘Scripture alone’. Nor, we would humbly add, are those of Orthodoxy.”[14]

I recently heard a well-known evangelical preacher say “the evangelical trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Bible” and while his point was partly in jest, it underlies the conception that evangelicals ‘are people of the Book’. The same could not be said of Orthodoxy however.

In Evangelicalism, the Bible is a central part of worship and heavy emphasis is also placed upon private study and devotion to the Bible. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, sees the private study of scripture as secondary (but connected to) to the communal reading, singing and chanting of scripture in Church. Orthodoxy would consider the idea of private biblical interpretation apart from the community life of the church as something altogether alien and possibly dangerous, allowing often-divisive individualism to hold sway over against the wider church community.  The EA raises the question as to whether or not the Spirit enables scripture to correct and judge the church in this particular system, but they add that one might indeed raise the same question about evangelical church life. Nevertheless, evangelicals do give room for scripture to have the final say over other claims to truth in church life, whereas the Orthodox may not.

The evangelical church has also been involved in different historical conflicts over scripture, which also partly explains why they have a differing doctrine of scripture to the Orthodox. Evangelicalism has often been involved in controversy with Liberalism over the divine inspiration of scripture, but it encounters Orthodoxy in a completely different way, with the debate taking place not over the divine origins of scripture, but over how scripture and tradition relate to one another. There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate which need to be addressed in the future however. Evangelicals remain concerned that tradition stifles the voice of the Spirit in Orthodoxy, while the Orthodox are concerned that evangelical individualism and ‘the Bible alone’ leads to divisiveness. Church history would indicate that both sides have good reasons for their fears.

4. Challenges for Orthodox and Evangelicals  

There is much to learn on both sides of the dialogue. Evangelicals need to cease viewing the Orthodox tradition (and Tradition too) with suspicion and cynicism, and take Paul’s talk of passing on tradition (1 Cor 11:2, 1 Thess 3:6) rather more seriously, and also his insistence that Christian ministers are to pass on the tradition to others (2 Tim 2:2) as part of their work. The Orthodox should also recognise that private study of the Bible need not lead to individualism, as most evangelicals still read and interpret within the safety-net of their own particular confession (though whether or not evangelicals would recognise the authority of a confessional group over their interpretation of scripture in another matter) and recognise that scripture is God’s gift to the whole church, not merely to individuals or isolated small groups.

It is unlikely that all the differences between evangelicals and Orthodoxy will ever be overcome (if indeed that is desirable for either party), but while there are certainly many differences between them, there is also much in common. The Cold War meant that evangelicalism and Orthodoxy rarely came into contact with each other, but as both groups attempt to apprehend and discover each other, it will become clear that evangelical paranoia about ‘false religion’ and Orthodox concern over evangelical individualism and lack of concern for Tradition may disappear in time.[1] ACUTE, Evangelicalism and the Orthodox Church (London: ACUTE, 2001) p95

[2] Philaret, Catechism Article 19

[3] Ibid, Article 42

[4] Ibid. Article 47

[5] Ibid. Article 48

[6] ACUTE, p96

[7] Ibid. p40

[8] Ibid. p97

[9] Philaret, Article 22

[10] ACUTE, p98

[11] Ibid. p99

[12] Ibid. p100

[13] Ibid. p101

[14] Ibid. p102.