My curiosity to Eastern Orthodoxy are how some evangelical commentators respond to it. Some of the response imply that Eastern Orthodox has 'incorrect' doctrine. What I find curious about these assertions is that they often do not detail what exactly is wrong about Eastern Orthodox doctrine. But rather by suggesting that Eastern Orthodoxy has wrong doctrine, it implies that Evangelicalism, or indeed the particular form of Biblical interpretation that the commentator holds, must be correct. Therefore, according to the commentator, any other view that 'appears' to be different to the view point that is held by the commentator to be incorrect.
I think this highlights something of a problem with the Reformed Christian (I, saying this as a Reformed Christian) view of the world. I think Evangelicalism needs to actually engage with what Eastern Orthodoxy, or indeed other Christian Traditions are presenting, rather than assuming that Reformed Christians have the correct view, and that everyone else is wrong.
Just because the Reformers rejected some things that were wrong doctrine, does not mean that everything that Rome did was wrong. By extension, just because the Reformed Christians look at Eastern Orthodoxy, and see that it has similar looking aesthetics, to what they have rejected, does not mean that it is incorrect. Things that look Roman in Eastern Orthodoxy, do not always have the same doctrine, and things that look Roman are not always wrong.
This is what Martin Luther argued, that not everything about Liturgical churches like Eastern Orthodoxy, have completely wrong doctrine. If they do, then we need to actually engage with the evidence, rather than just saying they saying they are wrong.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why evangelicals convert to Eastern Orthodoxy as it has a more open approach to asking questions about God, rather than a 'it must look and sound like this, other wise your are in doctrinal error'.
Appreciate the analysis! I have noticed an increased interest in EO over the past several years, particularly among the younger generation, as well as Latin mass Catholicism. I do believe that this generation is tired of manufactured, seeker-sensitive, slickly marketed Christianity and is looking for something deeper that goes against the grain of the rest of the culture.
Personally, while I grew up SBC and attended non-denoms in my teens and early twenties, I have landed in the Reformed Baptist tradition. In some ways it felt like coming home spiritually, but a big draw for me has been the robust theological tradition, the emphasis placed on keeping God’s commands (my experience with non-denom churches was that it consisted largely of unrepentant people who “felt” holy because they had emotional experiences at church), as well as adhering to a rich, robust, tried and tested confession of faith.
The entire concept of re-enchantment reminds me of a man who has lost interest in his wife and sees another pretty woman, who immediately becomes the object of his fascination. It might be real, or it could just be fantasy. In either case, more likely than not, The result will be sub optimal.
My curiosity to Eastern Orthodoxy are how some evangelical commentators respond to it. Some of the response imply that Eastern Orthodox has 'incorrect' doctrine. What I find curious about these assertions is that they often do not detail what exactly is wrong about Eastern Orthodox doctrine. But rather by suggesting that Eastern Orthodoxy has wrong doctrine, it implies that Evangelicalism, or indeed the particular form of Biblical interpretation that the commentator holds, must be correct. Therefore, according to the commentator, any other view that 'appears' to be different to the view point that is held by the commentator to be incorrect.
I think this highlights something of a problem with the Reformed Christian (I, saying this as a Reformed Christian) view of the world. I think Evangelicalism needs to actually engage with what Eastern Orthodoxy, or indeed other Christian Traditions are presenting, rather than assuming that Reformed Christians have the correct view, and that everyone else is wrong.
Just because the Reformers rejected some things that were wrong doctrine, does not mean that everything that Rome did was wrong. By extension, just because the Reformed Christians look at Eastern Orthodoxy, and see that it has similar looking aesthetics, to what they have rejected, does not mean that it is incorrect. Things that look Roman in Eastern Orthodoxy, do not always have the same doctrine, and things that look Roman are not always wrong.
This is what Martin Luther argued, that not everything about Liturgical churches like Eastern Orthodoxy, have completely wrong doctrine. If they do, then we need to actually engage with the evidence, rather than just saying they saying they are wrong.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why evangelicals convert to Eastern Orthodoxy as it has a more open approach to asking questions about God, rather than a 'it must look and sound like this, other wise your are in doctrinal error'.
Pardon my grammar and incorrect use of plural and singular passive verbs!
Appreciate the analysis! I have noticed an increased interest in EO over the past several years, particularly among the younger generation, as well as Latin mass Catholicism. I do believe that this generation is tired of manufactured, seeker-sensitive, slickly marketed Christianity and is looking for something deeper that goes against the grain of the rest of the culture.
Personally, while I grew up SBC and attended non-denoms in my teens and early twenties, I have landed in the Reformed Baptist tradition. In some ways it felt like coming home spiritually, but a big draw for me has been the robust theological tradition, the emphasis placed on keeping God’s commands (my experience with non-denom churches was that it consisted largely of unrepentant people who “felt” holy because they had emotional experiences at church), as well as adhering to a rich, robust, tried and tested confession of faith.
The entire concept of re-enchantment reminds me of a man who has lost interest in his wife and sees another pretty woman, who immediately becomes the object of his fascination. It might be real, or it could just be fantasy. In either case, more likely than not, The result will be sub optimal.