Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism
Vladimir Berzonsky, a Russian Orthodox pastor and theologian, offers a negative response from the other side, contending that evangelicalism is far too individualistic and possesses a glaring lack of a truly biblical ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). This fosters a “me and Jesus” piety that, combined with an overemphasis on justification with a lack of emphasis on sanctification, does not reflect the requirement of personal transformation demanded by the Gospel.
George Hancock-Stefan, a childhood convert from Orthodoxy to Baptist evangelicalism, offers a “maybe” response to the question of compatibility. His essay is largely geared toward church issues as they relate to the proper concept of salvation. He believes that an evangelical could become Orthodox if the latter would affirm the salvation of those beyond their own Christian community (non-Orthodox Christians) and acknowledge more explicitly the individual dimensions of salvation.
Edward Rommen, a convert from evangelicalism to Orthodoxy, offers the other “maybe” essay, which is perhaps the best piece in the entire collection. He too takes the strategy of noting areas of compatibility before moving to factors that militate against communion between the two traditions. Both place a high premium on the inspiration and authority of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit. Differences abide, however. First, there is a cultural divide between East (Orthodoxy) and West (evangelicalism) that equips the two movements with two differing conceptual paradigms for doing theology. The East is much more relational and person-oriented while the West is more interested in matters of substance and nature in its development of specific concepts and doctrines. He also notes that evangelicals persistently and erroneously accuse the Orthodox of denying justification by faith, which constitutes a serious barrier to compatibility.
Nassif and Rommen’s essays are the best in the collection, though Rommen’s is the very best due to his realistic but hopeful attitude. Nassif’s is very commendable due to his optimism, but suffers from perhaps more optimism than is due in the current ecumenical climate. Hancock-Stefan’s contribution is average, offering more of an assessment than a definitive position. Berzonsky’s piece, while oftentimes moving and theologically insightful, crosses from argumentation to almost open hostility in too many points to facilitate fruitful dialogue, which proves one of Hancock-Stefan’s points. Horton, while probably possessing more understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy than most evangelical theologians, still gets it wrong in too many crucial areas. His repeated insistence that Orthodoxy denies justification by faith and advocates a works righteousness that flies in the face of evangelical, and therefore biblical, theology is wrongheaded and assumes that the Reformed branch of evangelicalism is the only one. This leads to a key criticism of the entire work: who gets to define evangelicalism? Where is the Wesleyan/Holiness/Pentecostal strand represented? The book would have been a great deal more of a contribution to ecumenical dialogue had at least one scholar representing this broad swath of evangelicalism been tapped.
Reviewed by Matthew Thompson
Followers
Fans
