August 17, 2008

Perceptions...

...I know it's been forever since anybody has posted on here ("forever," in blog terms, being three months), but something has been on my mind as of late...

My mother has invited us to enroll our three year-old in a program I was in when I was a child -- some of you may have heard of AWANA -- and my wife and I, after having looked at some of the literature for the youngest group which our three year-old would attend, had some reservations.

While, at this point, it would, by and large, be simple recitation of basic Bible verses and knowledge of Bible stories, the idea of Christ's satisfactionary atonement -- that is, paying the price for our sin to avoid everlasting punishment -- is at odds with our Orthodox belief in a soul's experience of heaven or hell based on his reaction to the presence of Christ as consuming fire and as Judge. Even my mother, who is not one for complexities in doctrine, admitted that that's a very real difference.

What's got me thinking as of late, though, is this: when I stated the ramifications of satisfactionary atonement -- namely, that we are basically being saved by Christ from the Father's wrathful actions against us because of something that doesn't have to do with our actual righteousness -- she stated that that's not what she believes. And I think that's rather common among Evangelicals. And I'm not at all sure why. Indeed, though it is what is declared in many statements of faith in many Evangelical churches (and in statements of organizations like AWANA), many believers in the pews still see God as a loving Creator who they desire to live in communion with rather than a legalistic despot more concerned with fulfilling cosmic debit and credit legers and eternally torturing people than actually sanctifying and purifying people's hearts.

In contrast, though the Orthodox view of God as all-consuming Love is most definitely preached from pulpits in our churches, it seems to me that our God is often perceived by folks in the nave as Someone who is more concerned with sacramental requirements and external conformity than in a real, ontological change of nous and heartfelt, life-long, grateful metanoia.

Of course, I still see the differences as quite stark, but my question remains: why do you think Evangelical Protestants often have a religious culture that fosters gratitude instead of obligation and fear, while it seems that Orthodox often have the opposite?

2 comments:

Fr. Ernesto Obregon said...

You have some good questions in your post. Let me approach one of them "sideways."

In order to have a strong conception of Augustinian justification, one needs to have a strong conception of traducianism, that is, that the sin of Adam is not simply imputed to mankind, but that it is transmitted to mankind from generation to generation. That is, parents "pass on" original sin to their children (see Tertullian).

However, the modern American is horrified by the thought that one of their children would be "punished" for something they did not personally do. That would not be a "true" God, but rather a genocidal God. So the idea of original sin, as meaning original guilt, has suffered greatly in American Evangelicalism.

Rather, original sin has been popularly re-defined as something akin to simply the idea that Adam's sin left us vulnerable and damaged. To most Evangelicals in the pew, we are simply damaged people, and are damaged in such a way that we find it impossible to really obey the commands of God (that bit of Calvinism does remain).

God is then seen as a loving God who sent His Son to die in payment for our sin, in order that the demands of justice be met, but justice as a concept, not the idea of a wrathful God. Having gotten that out of the way, God is free to work with us to ameliorate the effects of our damage, much as a loving physical therapist works with a disabled person.

What I have said above is in no official statement, nor is it officially preached. I am simply claiming that it is the way in which many Evangelicals popularly relate to God, regardless of official statements. However, this view is more conducive to Orthodox views of synergy and deification than the official statements. It is no surprise that some Evangelicals end up in Orthodoxy and have little problem switching to Eastern-style theology.

So, whatever AWANA may teach officially, what is actually believed popularly by most Evangelicals would be something else. (I am not saying that you should send your child to AWANA.)

Matt and Cyndi said...

David,
Before I became Orthodox I used to teach a class on soteriology in my Fundamentalist Protestant church. I would never have said that Jesus saves us from the Father's wrath. What I did say is that the Father loves us and wasn't willing for us to suffer the just consequence of our sins, so he sent Jesus to bear that penalty for us. Thereby fulfilling His nature by meeting the requirements of His justice and the requirements of His love.

Fr. Ernesto, I taught traducianism and it always upset my students. I was always amazed that it was so unsettling to my fellow Protestants since I was getting it from Luther's and Calvin's interpretation of Romans and Galatians.

Oddly, now that I am Orthodox I am not entirely sure how I am saved. (At what point am I divinized enough to not writhe in eternal agony when I die?) In Orthodoxy, it seems to me, soteriology is kind of squishy; at least, my understanding of it is. Not at all does it have the logical certainty of protestant official protestant soteriology.