I found a thoughtful evangelical appraisal of Eastern Orthodoxy in a rather unexpected source: Answers in Genesis.  Abating Trent Hyatt’s advocacy of a more literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis than I can cope with, the discussion was, as far as I could tell, fair and courteous.

What follows is loosely based on that article.

1. Authority.  The Orthodox regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God.  Like the Roman Catholics, they recognise a more extensive canon compared with Protestants.

Whereas Catholics regard Scripture and Tradition as separate authorities, for the Orthodox, Scripture is part (the most important part, to be sure) of a single great Tradition.  This tradition includes the teaching agreed by the seven ecumenical Councils and that of the church Fathers.  It regards the interpretation of Scripture by these other elements of the Tradition as authoritative.  No individual has the right to interprete the Bible for his or her self: their understanding is guided by the teachings of the church Fathers.  Thus, the indvidualism that tends to beset Protestantism is avoided.  Conversely, the modern reader of the Bible is liable to repeat uncritically the mistakes and omissions of the past.  The Protestant would want to say that the insights and advances of the Reformation have passed the Orthodox by, because of their undue reliance on older theologians.  So much for ‘Reformed, and always reforming’!

One way of putting would be to say that in Evangelicalism (at least, in principle) the church is always under the authority of the Bible, whereas in Orthodoxy the church takes its place alongside the Bible, as it authoritative interpreter.

2. Creation.  Until the 19th century, Orthodox teachers held to a young earth, 6-day creation, a literal Adam and Eve, and a world-wide flood.

Now, according to priest and scholar Andrew Louth, there is a variety of opinion among the Orthodox:

‘Do Christians have to believe that Adam and Eve existed, and that they sinned, and that their sin has infected all subsequent human beings? Do we have to believe that there was an original couple, that Homo sapiens emerged from some kind of Homo erectus as a single couple, in a particular place. . . . There are . . . Christians who believe this, and indeed not a few of them are Orthodox Christians. I do not, however, think we, as Orthodox, need to commit ourselves to such a position.’

But precisely the same could be said of present-day Evangelicalism.

Where Orthodox teaching does depart from that of Reformed teaching is on the doctrine of Adam’s sin.  Whereas Reformed theology, following Augustine and Calvin, holds to ‘original sin’, the Orthodox prefer the term ‘ancestral sin’.

3. Christ.  Orthodoxy has a high doctrine of Christ.  It regards itself as ‘the Church of the Seven Councils’ and so embraces Nicene and Chaledonian Christology.  But implications of the Incarnation and of Christ’s work of redemption are different for the Orthodox.  These will be explored presently.

4. Salvation and the Sacraments.  For Orthodoxy, salvation is inextricably linked to the sacraments. Baptismal regeneration is taught.  Baptism is followed by ‘chrismation’, which involves anoiting will oil and a belief that the Holy Spirit is thereby conferred.  The baptised infant is a full member of the Church, and thereafter receives the sacrament of Holy Communion.  For the Orthodox, these sacraments actually transmit divine grace, and are effective regardless of the faith (or otherwise) of either the celebrant or the recipient.

The Orthodox Church does not (fully) recognise baptisms that have taken place in Protestant or Roman Catholic churches.  This is because the Orthodox Church is regarded as the one true church, and (in the words of Cyprian) ‘outside the church there is no salvation’.

It appears, then, that the Orthodox make much of the Church and its sacrament, but little of personal faith.

The regeneration that is conferred at or by baptism is only the beginning of the path of salvation.  Spiritual life must be nurtured.  Salvation is more a process than an event.  This brings us to:

5. Theosis, or ‘deification’.  The Orthodox quote Athansius: ‘God became man that we might become gods’.  This is not meant in a ontological sense.  Orthodox theology distinguishes between the divine ‘essence’ and the divine’ energies’.  It is the latter that we aspire to, by a process that continues throught this life and into the life to come.  It is roughly parallel to the Protestant doctrine of sanctification (of being ‘conformed to the image of Christ’, Rom 8:29).  ‘Deification’ is synergistic: it requires both divine grace and human effort.  The process requires, not only assiduous use of the sacraments, but fasting, prayer, alm-giving and other good works.  Salvation, then, may be seen as part gift, part reward.  However, this is not a very different balance that that seen in other non-Reformed Protestant theologies – semi-Pelagian, Arminian, Wesleyan, and so on.  And even in Reformed teaching, final justification according to works, has a clear, if carefully-nuanced, place.

6. Atonement.  Orthodox theology focusses more on the Incarnation and the Resurrection than on the Cross.  So, for the Orthodox thinker Bulgakov,

‘For God so loved the world that He spared not His Son to save and deify it. The Incarnation, first decreed to ransom fallen humanity and reconcile it with God, is understood by Orthodoxy as, above all, the deification of man, as the communication of the divine life to him. To fallen man the Incarnation became the supreme way for his reconciliation with God, the way of redemption. This produces the concept of salvation as deification.’

The Incarnation, then, is the protoypical ‘deification’ of humanity.  To the Protestant, this emphasis on the Incarnation seems to attribute to it things that are not found in Scripture, while at the same time it neglects the rich vein of biblical teaching on Christ’s work of atonement on the Cross.

Orthodox theology also makes much of the Resurrection, but also at the cost of due attention to the cross-work of Christ.  One effect of this is to represent Christ’s achievement as a victory over death and decay more than a deliverance of the sinner from the wrath of God.

7. Worship.  I have noted elsewhere the main features of an Orthodox worship service, including the predominance of icons.  I shall set aside the common Protestant objection based on the 2nd Commandment (out of respect for the Orthox insistence that they venerate, or honour icons; they do not worship them).  But it is inescapable that the veneration of icons, as understood and practiced by the Orthodox, is entirely absent from the New Testament.  Recourse must be had either to the Old Testament (notwithstanding the argument from Hebrews that Christ is himself the completion and fulfilment of such things) or to extra-biblical apostolic tradition.  It is of no value to claim that the New Testament has its own images – the cross, for example, or Christ as the Lamb of God.  But there is never any indication that such images could be used as objects of veneration.  Unpopular as it may sound to some, we have to insist that the faith of the New Testament is overwhelmingly word-based, and not image-based.

But the weightiest argument in favour of the use of icons comes from the Incarnation itself.  God took on flesh.  He became visible.  He assumed physicality.  So, to reject icons (it is argued) is to reject the Incarnation.  But it is a big step from the uniqueness of the Incarnation to the idea that we are thereby permitted to make images of Christ, saints and angels.  Moreover, even Orthodox thinkers agree that, among the unschooled, veneration can all too easily merge into idolatry.

Related to all of this is the Orthodox notion that ‘holiness’ can be predicated of places and objects.  ‘Holiness’, that is to say, not simply in terms of being set apart for a godly purpose, but in the sense of conveying ‘grace’.

Orthodox worship is highly liturgical.  It is true that much of the liturgy consists of words drawn from Scripture.  Not all services have a sermon, or ‘homily’.  For these that do, this tends to be shorter, occupying a less important place than in most evangelical acts of worship.

It is, no doubt, the colourful and highly liturgical worship of the Orthodox that make it attractive to a number Westerners.  They want something more than bare walls and plain words.

8.  The Church.  The Orthodox see themselves are comprising the only true Church.  This is so, because of apostolicity.  Their bishops and priests are the heirs and successors of the first Apostles.  There is an unbroken succession, from the time of Christ and his apostles right down to the present day.  For the Evangelical, ‘apostolic succession’ means something quite different: it is the passing down, from one generation to the next, of the teaching of the apostles.  For the Protestant, the true Church is wherever (and among whomever) the gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments (baptism and Holy Communion) are faithfully administered.

Conclusion

Why, then, are some Protestants so attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy?

Favouring of ‘mystery’ over intellect

Sense of historical continuity

Authority

Appeal to the senses