Why Eastern Orthodox can't argue theology?

English: Izbište-Eastern Orthodox Church Српски / Srpski: Православна Црква у Избишту (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The late Richard Weaver hated the title of his book Ideas Have Consequences. That is unfortunate, because the title is outstanding and carries a wealth of theology in three simple words. Ideas have very pointed consequences, and one of the best illustrations of this is the profound differences that have developed between the Western church and the Eastern church. Those differences are not merely “doctrinal,” but reveal two completely different mindsets, two different paradigms.

Some years ago, some colleagues had occasion to criticize aspects of the Eastern Orthodox Church in print. Aside from all the expected disagreements and the back-and-forthing that goes on after such things, a remarkable thing became apparent in the exchanges we had—the Eastern Orthodox do not really know how to argue.

By way of contrast, historic Protestants have deep and abiding differences with the Roman Catholic Church that cannot be papered over with ecumenical position papers. But the disagreements that remain between Rome and Geneva still show that both sides retain something in common. They are both heirs of the Western mind; they share a common approach to argument. This is not the case at all with the Eastern Orthodox.

In order to argue anything, a man has to be able to say this, not that; here, not there; A, not not A. In short, he has to be able to make distinctions. So argumentation depends on this, and distinctions in their turn depend on having an ultimate ground for making distinctions. In the historic Protestant view, the ultimate and greatest distinction that must be maintained at all times is the distinction between the Creator and the creature. This divide is an ontological chasm that keeps clear the utter and complete differences between necessary and contingent, infinite and finite, Maker and made. This ultimate distinction provides us with the basis we need to justify the process of argument, and is an assumption that Protestants and Catholics share.

So the point is not that the Eastern Orthodox do not know how to argue because they did not have debating classes in school. Neither is any question being raised about intelligence. The issue, rather, is the uses to which intelligence and education are put. In the East, careful debate is not valued, and the reason is an idea that had a profound consequence.

The Eastern church blurs the ultimate distinction between Creator and creature with its doctrine of theosis, or deification. That doctrine is critiqued elsewhere in this issue, so it should be sufficient here simply to point out that when the Eastern Orthodox argue for an ontological union between man and God’s energies, they are confusing the one thing that must not be confused. God, His being or energies, can not be separated and then doled out like cake at a party, regardless.

Blurring distinctions between Creator and creature leads necessarily to blurring distinctions within the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to coherent and sustained thought—and theosis has to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity in its implications. Humans cannot be deified without creating an imbalance in the relations or processions of the divine persons. The implications of this line of thought place the Eastern church at variance not just with Scripture, but also with the early ecumenical creeds. But there I go, arguing.…

My point here is not to show that they are wrong in their assumption, but rather that the assumption they make is inconsistent with sustained argumentation. This in its turn explains a host of consequences—the Eastern Orthodox Church is still here because of inertia and authority. Preaching, proselytizing, apologetics, evangelism—all these are impossible to conceive apart from argument; and Eastern Orthodoxy does not readily go anywhere that argument might be required.

Those modern evangelicals who are drawn eastward are not drawn by sustained argument; rather they are attracted by antiquity, beauty, and authority, and repelled by the apparent lack of such things in the monkey house that we call contemporary evangelicalism. But if such a pilgrim asks the question, “How do we know this is true?” the answer is entirely out of reach. In the Eastern view, doctrinal truth is established by the uniform consensus of the church throughout all time. The only problem with this is that history is not yet done. We do not yet know what the church through all ages has said. Thus, we see another failure to make distinctions. And whether you are from the West or the East, you will surely suffer for exalting irrationality

(1999). Tabletalk Magazine, June 1999: Does the Sun Set in the East?, 60–61.