In the year 1054, the Great Schism occurred, dividing the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Western Church down to the present day. In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformation resulted in a further division of the Western Church into the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant churches. In a previous series on this blog, I explored some of the major differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and explained why I am a Protestant. But why be a Western Christian in the first place? Geographic location alone is certainly not a sound reason for being a Western rather than Eastern Christian, especially since Eastern European immigrants have established many Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States.
There are certainly many positive things about the Eastern Orthodox tradition, and there are things that Western Christians can learn from it. However, all things considered, I believe that Western Christian theology makes more biblical and theological sense than Eastern Orthodox theology. In my last blog post, I made the case for why the Western Trinitarian theology makes more sense than Eastern Trinitarian theology. In this post, I will discuss some other ways in which Western Christian theology makes more biblical and theological sense than Eastern Orthodox theology.
Atonement
The understanding of Atonement that has been dominant in the Western Church is the Penal Substitution Theory: Christ took upon Himself the consequences of humanity’s sin, experiencing the penalty of sin when He suffered and died for us on the cross, so that those who put faith in Him can be forgiven their sins and be free of the penalty of sin. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the understanding of Atonement that has been dominant is the Christus Victor Theory: through Jesus’s death and resurrection God won a victory over the powers of evil, and Christians can share in that victory through faith in Jesus. These two theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, overall, Western Atonement theology seems more in line with biblical teaching than Eastern Atonement theology.
Eastern Orthodox Christians will often say that the root problem of the fallen human condition is death; death leads to sin, which is our unhealthy coping mechanisms to deal with our fear of death. And because Jesus, through His death and resurrection, destroyed the power of death, Christians can be freed from death and thus freed from sin. However, it is clear that the Western Christian understanding that the root problem of the fallen human condition is sin and that sin leads to death is more in line with biblical teaching. “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). “Sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James 1:15). There is certainly some truth to the idea that our fear of death can sometimes lead us to sin. However, there are many sins we commit that have nothing to do with the fear of death; the immortality of Satan and his angels certainly did not prevent them from sinning. The Western, Augustinian analysis of sin as being rooted in disordered love makes more theological sense than trying to explain sin as the result of our fear of death.
The New Testament does sometimes speak of Jesus’ death and resurrection as bringing about a victory over the powers of evil (Heb 2:14-17; Col 2:13-15). However, most often, it speaks of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sin that brings about our forgiveness (Matt 28:26; Rom 3:25; Eph 1:7; Heb 7:27, 9:28, 10:1-14; 1 John 2:2, 4:10). In one of the two passages that speak clearly of Atonement as victory, the apostle Paul claims that Jesus’s death is a victory over the spiritual powers of evil because it brings about forgiveness of sins: “When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col 2:13-15). The New Testament’s teaching about Atonement is that, by His death and resurrection, Jesus brings about forgiveness of sins, allowing us to be reconciled to God and leading to a victory over the powers of evil. This is more in line with Western theological discourse about Atonement than Eastern Orthodox theological discourse.
Salvation
One of the primary issues dividing Protestants and Catholics is their differing understandings of salvation; Protestants insist that Christians are justified before God by faith alone, while Catholics see both faith and works as contributing to justification. For Eastern Orthodox Christians, this entire debate is not even interesting. This is because Eastern Orthodox Christians do not think of salvation in the legal category of justification; rather, they think of salvation in the mystical category of theosis: “deification” or “divinization.”
Theosis means becoming part of God. Eastern Orthodox theologians are careful to clarify that we cannot become part of the essence of God, only part of the energies of God. However, this distinction between the essence and energies of God is speculative, and it is unclear how this is consistent with the doctrine of the simplicity of the Divine nature. In any case, while Christians are intimately united to God through Christ, it is impossible for human beings to actually become part of God. Even in the Incarnation, Jesus’ Divine and human natures remain distinct; they are united in one Person without change or confusion. Jesus’ human nature does not become part of the Divine nature, and neither do the human natures of Christians.
The biblical basis for the idea of theosis is 2 Peter 1:4: “He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.” However, it is most likely that, rather than speaking of Christians literally becoming part of God, Peter is speaking of Christians being transformed morally by the sanctifying power of God at work in them so that their moral character reflects the moral character of God. In the very next verse, Peter says, “For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love” (2 Pet 1:5-7). Peter’s focus in this passage is moral transformation, not literal deification.
The New Testament does teach that Christians have some kind of mystical union with God through Christ. However, in the New Testament’s teaching about salvation, justification is absolutely central (Rom 3:21-30, 4:1-25, 5:1-18, 8:30-33, 10:10; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 2:15-17, 3:8-11, 24, 5:4; Tit 3:7). God is the Holy and Righteous Judge of the world, and, because we are guilty sinners, we need to be forgiven and saved from our sins, so that we can avoid condemnation and be in right relationship with Him (Matt 25:31-46; Acts 17:30-31; Rev 20:-15). In addition to making more theological sense, the Western Christian focus on salvation as justification (and subsequent sanctification) is less speculative and more biblical than the Eastern Orthodox concept of salvation as theosis.
Sacramental Practice
Some Protestants practice believer’s baptism, baptizing only those who are able to make a profession of faith and commitment to follow Jesus. Roman Catholics and some other Protestants practice infant baptism. Then, when the baptized infant comes of age, they are invited to participate in the sacrament of confirmation: confirming for themselves the baptismal confession and commitment their parents made on their behalf when they were infants. Eastern Orthodox Christians practice infant baptism, immediately followed by chrismation (the Eastern version of confirmation) of the baptized infant.
In this previous post, I made the case for why believer’s baptism is the best sacramental practice. To some extent, I respect the practice of infant baptism followed by confirmation when the baptized infant comes of age. This practice does temporally separate repentance and faith from baptism, which, biblically, should be a single event. However, it does make clear the need for a child of Christian parents to make a personal decision to follow Jesus as His disciple when they come of age. However, the Eastern Orthodox practice of infant baptism immediately followed by chrismation is a step further removed from believer’s baptism and is even more problematic. When there is no sacramental practice that makes clear the need for a child of Christian parents to make a personal decision to follow Jesus as His disciple when they come of age, this risks turning the Church into merely a religious institution with religious rituals rather than a community of people who have truly denied themselves, taken up their cross and followed Jesus. Western sacramental practice, which makes more clear the necessity of personal repentance and faith for Church membership, seems more biblical than Eastern Orthodox sacramental practice.
Conclusion
I have a great deal of respect for the Eastern Orthodox tradition. However, for the four main reasons I discuss in this post, I believe that, overall, Western Christian theology makes more biblical and theological sense than Eastern Orthodox theology. That is why I am a Western Christian.