Dr. Jack Kinneer, minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, once a seminarian at St. Vladimir's Seminary, has written a piece entitled, A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy (from the December 1998 edition of New Horizons).
Both Karl and Doug have offered some responses, but I thought I'd offer a bit more extended evaluation.
But I did not belong to the communion of churches often called Eastern Orthodox, but more properly called simply Orthodox. I was not Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or Antiochian Orthodox. As far as the Orthodox at St. Vladimir’s were concerned, I was not Orthodox, regardless of my agreement with them on various doctrines.
Here we have the first significant disconnect. For all Dr. Kinneer's time at SVS it is surprising that he failed to come to a very important understanding: Orthodoxy is not just about right belief. Orthodoxy is about a whole life, it's about being a member of the family. One doesn't cobble the dogmatic pronouncements of the Seven Councils and the Nicene Creed onto an otherwise Protestant life. Dr. Kinneer is not Orthodox, not because he isn't fully Orthodox in his beliefs, but because he doesn't belong to the family called Orthodoxy.
I am not the only Calvinist to have become acquainted with Orthodoxy in recent years. Sadly, a number have not only made the acquaintance, but also left the Reformed faith for Orthodoxy. What is Orthodoxy and what is its appeal to some in the Reformed churches?This is more evidence that Dr. Kinneer has an important disconnect between what he thinks he knows about Orthodoxy and what Orthodoxy really is. For all that he genuinely appreciates certain aspects of Orthodoxy, what it comes down to for Dr. Kinneer is that Orthodoxy isn't Reformed. He is mystified that fellow Reformed ministers “jump ship” for Orthodoxy. Toward the end of the article he writes: “I am grieved when Reformed friends sacrifice this greater good [i.e., a “more biblical understanding” of particular doctrines important to the Reformed] for the considerable but lesser goods of Orthodox liturgy and piety.” For Dr. Kinneer, Orthodoxy is primarily about right belief. But in this, he fails to fully understand Orthodoxy.
That initial criticism aside, however, in the next five paragraphs, on the appeal of Orthodoxy, are an excellent historical summary, and a fair and sympathetic description of the appeal of Orthodoxy's apostolic connections and its liturgical life. Would that that sympathetic assessment continued with a more open and honest appraisal of Orthodoxy, its life, worship and teachings.
Dr. Kinneer lists several “shortcomings” he finds in Orthodoxy, namely: 1) a lack of a “Westminster Confession”-like summary of the faith, 2) a failure to understand justification by faith, 3) a problem with nominal members, 4) an inadequate understanding of sovereign grace, 5) the non-biblical use of icons, 6) a lower view of the Bible than the Church Fathers had, 7) a passionate commitment to monasticism, 8) prayers to Mary, 9) the development of the liturgy through complicated long, historical process. We'll take these one-by-one.
Dr. Kinneer begins his critique with the following:
A comparison of the Reformed faith with the Orthodox faith would be a massive undertaking, made all the more difficult because Orthodoxy has no doctrinal statement comparable to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Orthodoxy is the consensus of faith arising from the ancient Fathers and the ecumenical councils. This includes the forty-nine volumes of the Ante- and Post-Nicene Fathers, plus the writings of the hermits and monastics known collectively as the Desert Fathers! It would take an entire issue of New Horizons just to outline the topics to be covered in a comparison of Orthodoxy and Reformed Christianity.
It's difficult to quite know what the good doctor is after here. Is he faulting Orthodoxy for not having a succinct statement of faith? If so, why isn't the Nicene Creed good enough? Or is it that Dr. Kinneer finds it daunting to confront the entire witness of the Orthodox Church? He wouldn't be culpable for thinking that, of course. It is a daunting prospect. But I would humbly submit that if Dr. Kinneer did a bit more thorough work, he would find many of his criticisms falling by the wayside. As Karl mentioned, a look at St. John Damascene's An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, is an excellent and accessible place to begin.
Next, Dr. Kinneer thinks the Orthodox have an inadequate understanding of “justification by faith.”
First, in my experience, the Orthodox do not understand justification by faith. Some reject it. Others tolerate it, but no one I met or read seemed to really understand it. Just as Protestants can make justification the whole (rather than the beginning) of the gospel, so the Orthodox tend to make sanctification (which they call "theosis" or deification) the whole gospel. In my estimation, this is a serious defect. It weakens the Orthodox understanding of the nature of saving faith.
Dr. Kinneer assumes that his understanding of the term “justification by faith” is normative, and that Orthodoxy ought to fit his definition. So, on his own terms, yes, it would be correct that many Orthodox wouldn't understand what his belief on “justification by faith” means. But clearly Dr. Kinneer doesn't understand the Orthodox understanding of “justification by faith” which he rightly calls “theosis” but wrongly limits to “sanctification.” Dr. Kinneer's theology splits justification by faith from sanctification. Orthodoxy does not. So it's no wonder that Dr. Kinneer found the lack of comprehension. Why should Orthodox get his own distinctive doctrine? And has Dr. Kinneer actually looked into what the Church has believed about “justification by faith” from the beginning? Or is he so wed to his late Reformation understanding of the term that he cannot see his is the innovation?
His next criticism is, quite frankly, a cheap shot.
Orthodoxy also has a real problem with nominal members. Many Orthodox Christians have a very inadequate understanding of the gospel as Orthodoxy understands it. Their religion is often so intertwined with their ethnicity that being Russian or Greek becomes almost synonymous with being Orthodox. This is, by the way, a critique I heard from the lips of Orthodox leaders themselves. This is not nearly as serious a problem in Reformed churches because our preaching continually stresses the necessity for a personal, intimate trusting, receiving, and resting upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Such an emphasis is blurred among the Orthodox.
First of all, let it be said that, yes, Orthodox would freely admit, with sorrow and shame, that too many do not have a living faith, many are Orthodox in name, but have theologies and lifestyles that match the non-Orthodox secularist consumerist society in which they are immersed. But I frankly find it offensive, and a show of hubris, that Dr. Kinneer does not think such problems go on in his own denomination. I don't doubt Dr. Kinneer's affirmation that OPC sermons stress the message he claims they do. But I do have doubts that OPC members are more vibrant in their faith than the Orthodox. It seems that Dr. Kinneer views his own church through rose-colored glasses.
The ethnic phyletism of Orthodoxy has been soundly and clearly condemned as a heresy. Dr. Kinneer is right to criticize it. But does Dr. Kinneer not think that Reformed Presbyterianism does not have its own ethnic issues? Perhaps not in the same fashion or degree as Orthodoxy, but one wonders if being Dutch or Scottish and being Reformed is not often equated in some Presbyterian minds.
Furthermore, Dr. Kinneer's criticism comes very close to the judgmentalism and hyprocisy Jesus explicitly condemns in Matthew 7.1ff.
Dr. Kinneer goes on to indict Orthodox for not understanding grace.
Second, the Orthodox have a very inadequate understanding of sovereign grace. It is not fair to say that they are Pelagians. (Pelagius was a Western Christian who denied original sin and taught that man’s will is free to choose good.) But they are definitely not Augustinians (Calvinists) on sin and grace. In a conversation with professors and doctoral students about the nature of salvation, I quoted Ezekiel 36:26–27 as showing that there is a grace of God that precedes faith and enables that human response. One professor said in response, "I never thought of that verse in that way before." The Orthodox have not thought a lot about sin, regeneration, election, and so forth. Their view of original sin (a term which they avoid) falls far short of the teaching of Paul. Correspondingly, their understanding of Christ’s atonement and God’s calling is weak as well. Their views could best be described as undeveloped. If you want to see this for yourself, read Chrysostom on John 6:44–45, and then read Calvin on the same passage.
We're not Pelagians (thank, God!), but, we're not Augustinians. The mind boggles. And what, pray tell, makes Augustine (and later Calvin) a greater authority than all the other Fathers of the Church? Dr. Kinneer doesn't say. The best Dr. Kinneer can seem to do is note that his (presumably Calvinist) interpretation of Ezekiel gives rise to a rather ambiguous comment from one of the professors. But was the professor just being nice? There are many ways to inflect that sentence.
But for Dr. Kinneer to assert “The Orthodox have not thought a lot about sin, regeneration, election, and so forth. Their view of original sin (a term which they avoid) falls far short of the teaching of Paul. Correspondingly, their understanding of Christ’s atonement and God’s calling is weak as well. Their views could best be described as undeveloped” is so outrageous one hesitates to know where to begin? Has Dr. Kinneer been to or at least read the Divine Liturgy?
O Only-begotten Son and Word of God, who art immortal, yet didst deign for our salvation to be incarnate of the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary; and without change wast made man; and wast crucified also, O Christ our God, and by thy death didst Death subdue; who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit: save us.
and
With these blessed Powers we also, O Master who lovest mankind, cry aloud and say: Holy art thou and all-holy, thou and thine Only-begotten Son, and thy Holy Spirit: holy art thou and all-holy, and magnificent is thy glory: Who hast so loved thy world as to give thine Only-begotten Son, that all who believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life; Who when he had come and had fulfilled all the dispensation for us, in the night in which he was betrayed,-- or rather, gave himself up for the life of the world,--took bread in his holy and pure and blameless hands; and when he had given thanks and blessed it, and hallowed it and broken it, he gave it to his holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: Take, eat: this is my Body which is broken for you, for the remission of sins. Amen. Likewise, after supper, he took the cup, saying: Drink ye all of this: this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for any, for the remission of sins. Amen. Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things which have come to pass for us: the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming: Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee, in behalf of all, and for all.
Has Dr. Kinneer read St. Athanasius? “For He was made man that we might be made God” (On the Incarnation 54.3). It seems not. Dr. Kinneer apparently thinks that the four hundred years of development of the Reformed theology far outweighs the nineteen hundred years of Orthodox theology. His blinkered ignorance is breathtaking.
But let's compare St. John Chrysostom with John Calvin, shall we? First St. John on the Gospel of John 6:44-45:
Ver. 44. "No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him."
The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, "that nothing lies in our own power"; yet the expression showeth that we are masters of our will. "For if a man cometh to Him," saith some one, "what need is there of drawing?" But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implieth not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He showeth also the manner in which He draweth; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God, He addeth,
Ver. 46. "Not that any man hath seen God, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father."
"How then," saith some one, "doth the Father draw?" This the Prophet explained of old, when he proclaimed beforehand, and said,
Ver. 45. "They shall all be taught of God." (Isa. liv. 13.)
Seest thou the dignity of faith, and that not of men nor by man, but by God Himself they shall learn this? And to make this assertion credible, He referred them to their prophets. "If then `all shall be taught of God,' how is it that some shall not believe?" Because the words are spoken of the greater number. Besides, the prophecy meaneth not absolutely all, but all that have the will. For the teacher sitteth ready to impart what he hath to all, and pouring forth his instruction unto all.
It's not clear what Dr. Kinneer finds problematic here—unless it's the equation of Manichean determinism with heresy . . . something that would be brush up hard against Dr. Kinneer's own convictions.
Next, John Calvin on the same verses:
44. No man can come to me, unless the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. He does not merely accuse them of wickedness, but likewise reminds them, that it is a peculiar gift of God to embrace the doctrine which is exhibited by him; which he does, that their unbelief may not disturb weak minds. For many are so foolish that, in the things of God, they depend on the opinions of men; in consequence of which, they entertain suspicions about the Gospel, as soon as they see that it is not received by the world. Unbelievers, on the other hand, flattering themselves in their obstinacy, have the hardihood to condemn the Gospel because it does not please them. On the contrary, therefore, Christ declares that the doctrine of the Gospel, though it is preached to all without exception, cannot be embraced by all, but that a new understanding and a new perception are requisite; and, therefore, that faith does not depend on the will of men, but that it is God who gives it.
Unless the Father draw him. To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.
45. It is written in the Prophets. Christ confirms by the testimony of Isaiah what he said, that no man can come to him, unless he be drawn by the Father. He uses the word prophets in the plural number, because all their prophecies had been collected into one volume, so that all the prophets might justly be accounted one book. The passage which is here quoted is to be found in Isaiah 54:13, where, speaking of the restoration of the Church, he promises to her, sons taught by the instruction of God. Hence it may easily be inferred, that the Church cannot be restored in any other way than by God undertaking the office of a Teacher, and bringing believers to himself. The way of teaching, of which the prophet speaks, does not consist merely in the external voice, but likewise in the secret operation of the Holy Spirit. In short, this teaching of God is the inward illumination of the heart.
And they shall be all taught by God. As to the word all, it must be limited to the elect, who alone are the true children of the Church. Now it is not difficult to see in what manner Christ applies this prediction to the present subject. Isaiah shows that then only is the Church truly edified, when she has her children taught by God. Christ, therefore, justly concludes that men have not eyes to behold the light of life, until God has opened them. But at the same time, he fastens on the general phrase, all; because he argues from it, that all who are taught by God are effectually drawn, so as to come; and to this relates what he immediately adds,
Whosoever therefore hath heard my Father. The amount of what is said is, that all who do not believe are reprobate and doomed to destruction; because all the sons of the Church and heirs of life are made by God to be his obedient disciples. Hence it follows, that there is not one of all the elect of God who shall not be a partaker of faith in Christ. 6 Again, as Christ formerly affirmed that men are not fitted for believing, until they have been drawn, so he now declares that the grace of Christ, by which they are drawn, is efficacious, so that they necessarily believe.
These two clauses utterly overturn the whole power of free will, of which the Papists dream. For if it be only when the Father has drawn us that we begin to come to Christ, there is not in us any commencement of faith, or any preparation for it. On the other hand, if all come whom the Father hath taught, He gives to them not only the choice of believing, but faith itself. When, therefore, we willingly yield to the guidance of the Spirit, this is a part, and, as it were, a sealing of grace; because God would not draw us, if He were only to stretch out his hand, and leave our will in a state of suspense. But in strict propriety of language He is said to draw us, when He extends the power of his Spirit to the full effect of faith. They are said to hear God, who willingly assent to God speaking to them within, because the Holy Spirit reigns in their hearts.
Cometh to me. He shows the inseparable connection that exists between him and the Father. For the meaning is, that it is impossible that any who are God's disciples shall not obey Christ, and that they who reject Christ refuse to be taught by God; because the only wisdom that all the elect learn in the school of God is, to come to Christ; for the Father, who sent him, cannot deny himself.
Well, this much is obvioius: St. John Chrysostom is not John Calvin. And It's probably obvious as to who is the better Calvinist. But it's hardly clear that St. John fails to understand grace. St. John does fail to understand Calvinist grace. But there's good reason for that. It hadn't yet been invented.
Dr. Kinneer should also check out selection from St. John Damascene's Exposition dealing with freewill and predestination.
His next criticism has to do with icons.
Third, the Orthodox are passionately committed to the use of icons (flat images of Christ, Mary, or a saint) in worship. Indeed, the annual Feast of Orthodoxy celebrates the restoration of icons to the churches at the end of the Iconoclast controversy (in a.d. 843). For the Orthodox, the making and venerating of icons is the mark of Orthodoxy—showing that one really believes that God the Son, who is consubstantial with the Father, became also truly human. Since I did not venerate icons, I was repeatedly asked whether or not I really believed in the Incarnation. The Orthodox are deeply offended at the suggestion that their veneration of icons is a violation of the second commandment. But after listening patiently to their justifications, I am convinced that whatever their intentions may be, their practice is not biblical. However, our dialogue on the subject sent me back to the Bible to study the issue in a way that I had not done before. The critique I would offer now is considerably different than the traditional Reformed critique of the practice.
First, one needs to ask whether Dr. Kinneer has read St. John Damascene's apology for the holy icons? Because, if he had, he would have seen that are icons biblical. He does, however, rightly tie iconography to the Incarnation. That is the primary point of iconography: it is a witness to God-made-flesh. It's interesting that Dr. Kinneer's “orthodoxy” was questioned, given his lack of veneration of icons. It shows how closely the practice of icon veneration is tied to the Person of Jesus. It's also intriguing that Dr. Kinneer admits his critique post-exposure to Orthodoxy would now be different. One could wish he would note what is that difference.
His final major criticism, however, once again shocks and bewilders.
Finally, many of the Orthodox tend to have a lower view of the Bible than the ancient Fathers had. At least at St. Vladimir’s, Orthodox scholars have been significantly influenced by higher-critical views of Scripture, especially as such views have developed in contemporary Roman Catholic scholarship. This is, however, a point of controversy among the Orthodox, just as it is among Catholics and Protestants. Orthodoxy also has its divisions between liberals and conservatives. But even those who are untainted by higher-critical views rarely accord to Scripture the authority that it claims for itself or which was accorded to it by the Fathers. The voice of Scripture is largely limited to the interpretations of Scripture found in the Fathers.
Dr. Kinneer is judging all of Orthodoxy on the opinions of a few academics. I don't necessarily fault him for this. One starts from one's own experiences. But surely Dr. Kinneer has enough mental acumen and objectivity to know that one needs to cast one's nets a bit wider. Has Dr. Kinneer talked to priests “out in the field.” Is Dr. Kinneer aware that the (truncated) Bible he uses came directly from Orthodoxy? Is he not aware of the commentaries of the Church Fathers? Has he not read modern Orthodox authors? Dr. Kinneer is not talking about ignorance of Scripture—though his church and Orthodoxy would stand indicted as many of each group's members do not know the Scriptures as intimately was we should. Rather, Dr. Kinneer is talking about Orthodox holding theologically liberal views of Scripture.
One should also note that Dr. Kinneer may well confuse a high opinion of Scripture with holding a particular view of the inspiration of Scripture; namely, plenary verbal inerrancy in the autographs. But this is a particularly modern notion, arising out of the wars over theological liberalism. It is not only the a view not found in Church history, it's not one found among the Reformers. If the Reformers didn't hold Dr. Kinneer's view of inerrancy, did they, too, fail to hold Scripture in high regard?
Dr. Kinneer goes on to make some quick, offhand criticisms:
There is much else to be said. Orthodoxy is passionately committed to monasticism. Its liturgy includes prayers to Mary. And the Divine Liturgy, for all its antiquity, is the product of a long historical process. If you want to follow the "liturgy" that is unquestionably apostolic, then partake of the Lord’s Supper, pray the Lord’s Prayer, sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," and say "amen," "hallelujah," and "maranatha." Almost everything else in any liturgy is a later adaptation and development.
Dr. Kinneer doesn't clarify what his problem is with monasticism. So there's nothing here to respond to. Passionate commitment to monasticism is a very good thing.
Dr. Kinneer apparently has problems with addressing prayers to his fellow church members. I suppose he never asks anyone else to pray for him. He may well do that, I suppose. But it's hardly a Christian practice. Praying to our fellow Christians (better stated as “asking the intercessions of our fellow Christians”) is a time-honored, Scriptural practice. That's why we “pray to” Mary.
Dr. Kinneer's backhand to the Divine Liturgy is just silly. Does his church use a special building for worship services? Does Dr. Kinneer's church have Sunday School? Do they have pews? What about hymnbooks? Do they have Bibles? If so, then their liturgy is a product of a (not very long) historical process. All these things are later adaptations and developments from the conception of the first century Christians he upholds.
Thankfully, Dr. Kinneer does end with some positives:
But these criticisms do not mean that we have nothing to learn from Orthodoxy. Just as the Orthodox have not thought a lot about matters that have consumed us (such as justification, the nature of Scripture, sovereign grace, and Christ’s work on the cross), so we have not thought a lot about what have been their consuming passions: the Incarnation, the meaning of worship, the soul’s perfection in the communicable attributes of God (which they call the energies of God), and the disciplines by which we grow in grace. Let us have the maturity to keep the faith as we know it, and to learn from others where we need to learn.
These are suprisingly honest evaluations. He does admit that Reformed Presbyterianism has important weaknesses. But notice that he appeals to a tradition: “Let us have the maturity to keep the faith as we know it . . . .” This is what Orthodoxy is doing. Which has the greater authority and connection to the apostolic deposit?
Unfortunately, he ends with some simpleminded polemic: “I would love to see my Orthodox friends embrace a more biblical understanding of these matters. And I am grieved when Reformed friends sacrifice this greater good for the considerable but lesser goods of Orthodox liturgy and piety.” This begs so many questions, it would take some time to unravel. How does Dr. Kinneer know the Reformed faith is biblical? On what basis does he judge liturgy and piety as lesser goods?
These are questions that ultimately must come down to the question of authority. But this is something Dr. Kinneer doesn't touch on at all.
Posted by Clifton at September 1, 2004 06:00 AM | TrackBack