What are the key theological differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism?

1. Celebrating the Unknowable

Orthodox theology resists what it sees as the unduly rational approach of the West.  John of Damascus (655–749) wrote,

‘It is plain, then, that there is a God. But what he is in his essence and nature is absolutely incomprehensible and unknowable.… All that is comprehensible about him is his incomprehensibility.’

This reflects an ‘apophatic’ theology, which tries to describe God in terms of what he is not.  Lossky defines such theology as:

‘the breakdown of human thought before the radical transcendence of God … a prostration before the living God, radically ungraspable, unobjectifiable, and unknowable.’

Ivan Kireesky (1806-56) rejected what he saw as the excessive rationalism of the West:

‘Rome preferred the abstract syllogism to sacred tradition, which is the expression of the common mind of the whole Christian world, and in which that world coheres as a living and indissoluble unity.’ (Cited by Ware)

For the Orthodox, the unknowability of God is a cause of celebration.  Theology is an extension of prayer, praise and worship.

By contrast, Protestants are children of the Enlightenment, trained in rational analysis.  Theology is regarded as a ‘science’; the ‘queen of sciences’, no less.  Daniel Clendenin suggests:

‘We might say that in the West, theology is done with books in the library; in the Orthodox East, theology is done with liturgy in the sanctuary.’

2. Theology of images

Whereas Western theology works primarily with texts, Orthodox theology accords a large place to aesthetics.  Consequently, churches are covered with icons and frescoes, the priest wears elaborate vestments, there are bells, candles and incense.

The exensive use of icons in the Eastern church reflects the view that theology is taught in images, rather than in ideas.  As one Orthodox priest said: ‘Icons teach us all we need to know.’

Protestants, on the other hand, favour the written and spoken word.  The sermon replaced the Eucharist as the central moment in the liturgy.

Whereas Calvin said: ‘Images cannot stand in the place of books’, the Orthodox Alexei Khomiakov (d. 1860) complained that in Protestantism ‘a scholar has taken the place of the priest.’

3. Not ‘Scripture alone’

One of the great watchwords of the Protestant Reformation was ‘sola scriptura!’  The Reformers placed the Bible above tradition, and above the church.  The Word of God births the Bible, and not the other way round.  The Bible speaks directly to the reader, rather than having to be mediated through the church.

Orthodoxy questions the Protestant understanding of the place of the Bible.

‘According to the late Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff (d. 1992), “The Christian faith and experience can in no way be compatible with the notion of sola scriptura” and the rejection of all ecclesiastical authority except Scripture. This elevation of the Bible above the church, the consequence of which is private interpretation, George Florovsky (d. 1979) once called “the sin of the Reformation.”’

The Spirit of God speaks through apostolic tradition; this includes the Bible, but also the seven ecumenical councils, and, to a lesser degree, the church Fathers, and the church’s liturgy, canon law, and icons.

The Orthodox note that the church existed prior to the recognition of a biblical canon.  Its converts vow to

‘accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother.’

4. Becoming like God

For Luther and Calvin, the doctrine of justification by faith was absolutely central.

In Orthodoxy, however, there is little emphasis on justification.  Central place is given, rather, to the doctrine of theosis, or ‘deification’.  In the striking words of Athanasius:

‘God became man so that men might become gods.’

Scriptural support for theosis is claimed from in 2 Peter 1:4: ‘[God] has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature.…’.

In other words:

‘the Son of God descended and became a man, that we humans might ascend and become like Christ. The legal framework for understanding the work of Christ is played down and our mystical union with God is emphasized.’

Such a mystical union by no means entails pantheism: the essence of human nature is retained.  But it does entail an increasing likeness to Christ and a movement from corruption to immortality.  Through the grace of God and our own spiritual vigilance, we seek to attain what Maximus the Confessor (580–662) described as the

‘glorious attainment of likeness to God, insofar as this is possible with man.’

Based on (and quoting from) Daniel Clendenin, ‘What the Orthodox Believe: Four Key Differences between the Orthodox and Protestants’, in Christian History Magazine, Issue 54.