In my “Intro to the Christian Tradition” class at Biblical Seminary, we’re discussing James Payton’s Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition. In Chapter 4, Payton describes how Eastern Orthodox Christianity historically has emphasized God’s ineffability to a greater degree than Western Christianity. As a result, Eastern Orthodox theology tends to stress “apophatic” or “negative” theology — speaking about God primarily by emphasizing what God is not like — over “cataphatic” or “positive” theology. Here was one of our classroom discussion questions and my response:
1. How do you respond to Orthodox theology’s understanding that speaking of God is “a hazardous enterprise,” and that language is unable to fully convey God’s nature? (p. 59)
This is a very helpful reminder for those of us raised in evangelical independent church traditions.
In some circles, I think our ways of speaking about God have become “scholastic.” We are very keen to make logical arguments brimming with “evidence that demands a verdict.” Our in-house arguments tend to focus on the precise meanings of terms in carefully drafted “Statements of Faith.” These arguments and Statements may have a place, but it’s helpful to remember that they don’t really begin to grasp or contain God. I believe God is concerned with our fidelity to Him, and that this involves the transformation of our minds and the ability to “teach sound doctrine.” However, God is so far beyond our ability to articulate who He is that I think we dishonor Him when we make doctrinal precision the sine qua non of the Christian life. In fact, I agree with John Franke’s book “Manifold Witness” that some degree of difference in doctrinal articulation is part of God’s design for the Church. This need not be disturbing when begin to realize that God truly is ineffable.
It’s also helpful to remember that we cannot fully explain God’s ways. Often, we display enormous confidence in our own ability to discern exactly what God is doing in the world. Perhaps we assume automatically that AIDS, or genocide, or a financial crisis or natural disaster, is a clear message from God about someone else’s sin. Perhaps we assume equally quickly that our own “success” is evidence of God’s blessing. It’s true, of course, that God does discipline and punish sin and that we do experience His blessing as we follow Him. Yet, it’s helpful to remember that our primary posture must be one of humble, kneeling humility and gratitude. In fact, one of the blessings of faith, I think, is the ability to leave such tangles in God’s hands. If His love, justice and grace ultimately are beyond us, it is not for us to circumscribe how and when He must act with regard to others. It is for us simply to seek to be faithful with what He has given to us.
6 replies on “Light from the Christian East: Speaking of God”
Any idea why Payton has not become Orthodox? Any idea why you’re not becoming Orthodox? His book is very positive and enthusiastic, yet he stops short of what would seem a logical progression. Similar to Clendenin if you’re familiar with that writer.
Hi Rob, thanks for the comment. I don’t know Payton personally. Are you Orthodox? For me personally, I’m not sure I have a satisfying answer, either for you or for myself. I greatly appreciate many elements of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions. I think for me it ultimately comes down to a question of authority, as it does for many of us generally in the evangelical-Reformed tradition. If my “low church” evangelicalism is too individualistic, I still think Orthodox and Roman Catholic ecclesiology is too authoritarian. I don’t think I can commit either to Orthodoxy or to Rome as the one true visible church.
Yes, I’m Orthodox and find it not at all “authoritarian.” It’s authority is what I appreciate. For once I feel as if I’ve found the real church, not a church that I define for myself, but a church that defines me. Without that authority you’re left to you own devices, and you see what “the devices” of Luther, and Calvin, and ever evangelical preacher and every evangelical Christian has let us to–a world of chaos where there is not longer a church, not longer a people of God, but simply individuals who hang together until one of them gets another idea, and moves off to hang with someone else. You don’t have to be high church or low church, you just have to be part of the faithful receiving the body and blood of Christ at each Divine Liturgy. I pray you may fine your way home.
Sorry for all the typos. I should have proofed it before hitting submit.
I appreciate your answer, David. Refreshingly honest. Many are not able to say an honest word, because they cannot bear to be truthful with themselves.
What is it about the evangelical-Reformed tradition that you think too individualistic? What is individualism and why is it bad? How do you reconcile with that, or else how do you manage to otherwise deal with it?
What is it about the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions that you find authoritarian? What is authoritarianism and why is it bad? What is authority, and how does one negotiate what (if any) authorities are proper? How is authority legitimated?
You are more honest with yourself, I think, than I am, so I hope you will suffer to offer an answer here for those of us who are interested in learning from your honesty.
God’s Peace,
-Gregory
Gregory, thanks for the thought provoking questions. I suppose I could try to write a couple of books on these big questions — they are in many ways the central questions of both the Protestant Reformation and the theological crisis of modernity! Maybe I need to do some more reflecting and writing about this. Scanning over your site, appreciate the Orthodox rootedness in Tradition. I agree with a central theme here: no human being can decide for him or herself who God is. God is, and He comes to human beings as He is. Theology, at its best, is worship.
But when God comes to a person, what does that mean? Luther’s “On the Freedom of a Christian” still rings true to me. And studying Barth, I can appreciate how Barth makes Luther relevant for a postmodern age. I still feel that there is danger in reifying tradition, in taking the “Word of God” to be anything other than Christ, proclamation and scripture, or else the very thing Orthodox and other apophatic theologies seek so assiduously to avoid — claiming to define or capture God — becomes the aim of tradition.