I would say the Eastern tradition, as exemplified by the Orthodox takes a more spiritual approach to Scripture, while the mainline, Western approach is more mechanical. Since I am more of a historical critical thinker, here is how I would put it in comparison to the Orthodypox Approach.
Let's take Jonah as an example/
The Orthodox tradition reads Jonah as sacred drama revealing God’s mercy and the transformation of the human heart. Its focus rests on spiritual meaning: Jonah’s descent becomes an image of Christ’s descent into death, and Nineveh’s repentance shows that no one lies outside God’s compassion. The historical‑critical method approaches Jonah as a post‑exilic narrative shaped by satire and communal debate. It studies authorship, genre, and historical context to show how the story challenged Israel’s boundaries of belonging. Where Orthodoxy seeks the text’s transformative power, historical criticism seeks its original purpose and literary craft.
There is also another approach in Western Thought: The Grammatical Historical way: A grammatical‑historical theologian approaches Jonah with a very different set of instincts than either the Orthodox tradition or modern historical‑critical scholarship. Their goal is to understand the text as the original author intended and as the first audience would have heard it, using the ordinary tools of language, history, and context.
Ultimately though I would agree the Early Church would take the whole store as a typological rendition of Christ's death and resurrection, but modern studies have also shown how Jonah would have been interpreted by its earliest listeners, the post-exilic Israelites where there was an ongoing debate between exclusivity and inclusivity. Both traditions have so much to offer in their interpretations.
I think knowing where each tradition is coming from would help us reach a common ground.
What I would say is times change. What may have been an accepted solution in one generation may not be an appropriate approach in another. I could give examples but they would all cross over into epiphanies categories.
While I agree with this, it too is somewhat different from what I’m talking about.
What I’m talking about when it comes to the understanding reflected in the motto I cited above—Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“the church reformed, always to be reformed (or always being reformed) according to the Word of God”)—isn’t really times change and what used to work no longer does. Rather, it’s “we have failed to understand what Scripture teaches,” or “we have failed to hear what the Spirit is saying through Scripture.” It may even be “we have listened to the voice of the world rather than to the voice of the Spirit through Scripture.” In other words, it’s an ongoing project of discerning where we have strayed from Scripture and of allowing for correction and reformation in those places.
So in the case of dead-horse or epiphanic issues and from that theological perspective, determining that we need to change with the times is not a valid reason for changing what we believe or how we do things. To make such a change, the church must be convinced that the understandings underlying the way we’ve done things are in fact contrary to Scripture, and that the church was wrong in thinking otherwise, even if we thought otherwise for centuries.
This is very important IMO when it comes to discerning the mind of Christ or the will of God, going back to the unchanging truths of the gospel and core teachings of the church (and here I'm speaking in an ecumenical sense). It's vital to recognise how certain patriarchal practices or secular power dynamics in church and society exclude or oppress others without immediately trying to 'fix' things with social engineering experiments or hastily applied human-rights solutions. To go deeper as Christians and be willing to admit our straying from the Word of God leads to more radical and far-reaching reforms.
We have an unofficial motto in our congregation: always reforming. We could patent it, but I think some people on the Calvin side of the aisle would object.
Maybe, maybe not. And if any do object, it may not be for the reason you expect.
I’ve seen much ink spilled in Presbyterian publications pointing out that “always reforming” is not a correct translation of semper reformanda and is not consistent with Reformed theology. Rather, the proper translation and understanding is “being reformed” or “to be reformed.” (The latter is the translation used in the PC(USA)’s Book of Order.)
The distinction, the point is made, has to do with whether we reform ourselves (“always reforming”) or whether reforming is primarily the activity of the Holy Spirit (“always being reformed/to be reformed”). The Reformed understanding is the latter.
Well my schoolboy Latin tells me that "semper" translates as always or ever, so a translation that omits that word is wrong.
Since Vatican II, many progressive Roman Catholic theologians have chosen to draw on the tension implicit in the phrases "Ecclesia eadem" and "Ecclesia semper reformanda," a church seeking to stay 'the same', true to the Gospel, that is at the same time a church always in need of reform, imperfect and requiring constant repentance and divine grace, guided by the Holy Spirit but very much a work in progress.
One problem I find in so many conversations about this is that if we focus on different church traditions as monolithic or teachings emanating only from the magisterium or hierarchical leadership, there is a danger of forgetting that the most Scriptural, radical and transformative calls for change have come from those marginalised without authority or voice in Western churches.
We have an unofficial motto in our congregation: always reforming. We could patent it, but I think some people on the Calvin side of the aisle would object.
Maybe, maybe not. And if any do object, it may not be for the reason you expect.
I’ve seen much ink spilled in Presbyterian publications pointing out that “always reforming” is not a correct translation of semper reformanda and is not consistent with Reformed theology. Rather, the proper translation and understanding is “being reformed” or “to be reformed.” (The latter is the translation used in the PC(USA)’s Book of Order.)
The distinction, the point is made, has to do with whether we reform ourselves (“always reforming”) or whether reforming is primarily the activity of the Holy Spirit (“always being reformed/to be reformed”). The Reformed understanding is the latter.
Well my schoolboy Latin tells me that "semper" translates as always or ever, so a translation that omits that word is wrong.
Sure, but I’m not aware of any translation that omits “always.” Looking back I can see how my focus on the translation of reformanda gave an impression to the contrary. I guess I figured id already given the full translation twice in this thread. Sorry.
@Gramps49 yes, I think you've identified what would be the 'main' Orthodox approach to the Book of Jonah in your example.
However, Orthodox theologians are of course familiar with other models and methods and may even borrow or deploy them at times, even if they reach different conclusions.
I don't know whether this is germane to this discussion but I'm aware that the Ecumenical Patriarch said nice things about Barth for instance.
I'll get back with a longer reply at some point as I've been reading a very interesting essay on ecumenical dialogue by an Orthodox ecumenist who takes a positive view overall despite all the set-backs within the Ortho-sphere in recent years.
'It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit' (Acts 15:28) is an excellent principle but we all seem to be on different pages when it comes to discerning 'what the Spirit is saying to the churches.'
I don't know whether this is germane to this discussion but I'm aware that the Ecumenical Patriarch said nice things about Barth for instance.
This is true, Barth's Christological views closely align with Orthodox views. Barth also criticized Western liberal theology at the time, His ecclesiology opened space for East West dialogue. Barth helped Western Christianity Rediscover the Early Church Fathers. And he stood up to the Nazi regimes of the time.
If anything, Westen theology had to reorganize itself around the questions he forced back on to the table. His recovery of Trinitarian theology moved it to the organizing center of systematic theology. There was a renewed focus on Revelation and Scripture. He did not end liberal theology, but he reset the coordinates of Western Theology.
However modern theologians do have some criticism about Barth. His theology is too top down. It minimizes human history. The doctrine of Scripture is too ambiguous. He leaves little room for natural theology. He is insufficiently attentive to marginalized voices--this is a big one these days and his ethics are underdeveloped.
I would say Barth gave Western theologians a base from which to grow, but his words were not an end all to theology. It is still in process
Sure. And despite all appearances to the contrary, the Orthodox, and I'd imagine the RCs, would say that theological development is 'still in progress' - on our own terms of course!
One of the (many) things ecumenical partners find with the Orthodox is the insistence that we have some kind of 'prophetic role' in such dialogue in terms of directing everyone else 'back' to what we see as primordial pre-Schism Christianity.
That often comes across as arrogance. 'We've got nothing to learn from you lot, but you have so much to learn from us,' as it were.
I've heard Orthodox clergy say that we have much to learn from other Christian traditions in terms of practice, but nothing to learn theologically because we have the 'fullness of the faith' and everyone else has departed from that to a greater or lesser extent - some more than others - and so our 'job' in ecumenical relations is to affirm those areas where we all agree and respectfully point out 'errors' or divergence where this might appear.
This may very much sound as a one-way monologue rather than two-way dialogue in the accepted sense.
'We are right. You are wrong. One day you will agree with us,' sort of thing.
There are more nuanced approaches within Orthodoxy though, but always with the caveat that we ain't going to alter our faith anytime soon unless a future Ecumenical Council ever agrees to do so.
Which doesn't look likely in the near future.
That said, I have heard Orthodox theologians speak highly of Protestant scholarship in relation to the scriptures and that we can overplay some of the differences we see between us and Western figures like Aquinas.
Heck, I've even known one acknowledge that Calvin 'rings true' at times. As @Nick Tamen helpfully reminds us, often what people think the Reformed believe isn't necessarily representative.
For my own part, FWIW, I believe there is everything to be gained from ecumenical dialogue and interaction. On both sides.
We all need a 'continuous conversion' and those of us who maintain particularly strong claims about the 'rightness' of our own position probably more than most.
Barth's theology was a reaction to the over humanistic Liberal theology of the generation before. It was essential for the age it came into. Forget Bonhoeffer, the guy behind the Confessing Church, who would not stand for accommodation to human society by the Church, especially demands of the state that compromised the Gospel, was Barth and when that society is Germany in the 1930s, that matters. Theology is political. When we put the stress on the human part in salvation, we can often make the mistake of thinking humans are never that bad and that all demands are reasonable. When we put too much emphasis on the divine, we can end up making our theology into an idol in itself and mistake our interpretation for God's mandate.
Which is why we need to apply the Nicene/Chalcedonian formularies (with due respect to the Copts and others who some see as sitting outside that - or alongside perhaps?).
Christ is fully God and fully human.
The Church is a divine but all too human institution at one and the same time.
The Church isn't Christ but as the Body of Christ we must take it seriously as 'the pillar and ground of truth.'
However we understand it, visibly, invisibly, in continual need of reformation or else gradually becoming what it is and being 'conformed' to Christ - we are all in need of 'continual conversion' - being 'transformed by the renewing of our minds.'
Comments
Let's take Jonah as an example/
The Orthodox tradition reads Jonah as sacred drama revealing God’s mercy and the transformation of the human heart. Its focus rests on spiritual meaning: Jonah’s descent becomes an image of Christ’s descent into death, and Nineveh’s repentance shows that no one lies outside God’s compassion. The historical‑critical method approaches Jonah as a post‑exilic narrative shaped by satire and communal debate. It studies authorship, genre, and historical context to show how the story challenged Israel’s boundaries of belonging. Where Orthodoxy seeks the text’s transformative power, historical criticism seeks its original purpose and literary craft.
There is also another approach in Western Thought: The Grammatical Historical way: A grammatical‑historical theologian approaches Jonah with a very different set of instincts than either the Orthodox tradition or modern historical‑critical scholarship. Their goal is to understand the text as the original author intended and as the first audience would have heard it, using the ordinary tools of language, history, and context.
Ultimately though I would agree the Early Church would take the whole store as a typological rendition of Christ's death and resurrection, but modern studies have also shown how Jonah would have been interpreted by its earliest listeners, the post-exilic Israelites where there was an ongoing debate between exclusivity and inclusivity. Both traditions have so much to offer in their interpretations.
I think knowing where each tradition is coming from would help us reach a common ground.
This is very important IMO when it comes to discerning the mind of Christ or the will of God, going back to the unchanging truths of the gospel and core teachings of the church (and here I'm speaking in an ecumenical sense). It's vital to recognise how certain patriarchal practices or secular power dynamics in church and society exclude or oppress others without immediately trying to 'fix' things with social engineering experiments or hastily applied human-rights solutions. To go deeper as Christians and be willing to admit our straying from the Word of God leads to more radical and far-reaching reforms.
Well my schoolboy Latin tells me that "semper" translates as always or ever, so a translation that omits that word is wrong.
One problem I find in so many conversations about this is that if we focus on different church traditions as monolithic or teachings emanating only from the magisterium or hierarchical leadership, there is a danger of forgetting that the most Scriptural, radical and transformative calls for change have come from those marginalised without authority or voice in Western churches.
However, Orthodox theologians are of course familiar with other models and methods and may even borrow or deploy them at times, even if they reach different conclusions.
I don't know whether this is germane to this discussion but I'm aware that the Ecumenical Patriarch said nice things about Barth for instance.
I'll get back with a longer reply at some point as I've been reading a very interesting essay on ecumenical dialogue by an Orthodox ecumenist who takes a positive view overall despite all the set-backs within the Ortho-sphere in recent years.
'It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit' (Acts 15:28) is an excellent principle but we all seem to be on different pages when it comes to discerning 'what the Spirit is saying to the churches.'
This is true, Barth's Christological views closely align with Orthodox views. Barth also criticized Western liberal theology at the time, His ecclesiology opened space for East West dialogue. Barth helped Western Christianity Rediscover the Early Church Fathers. And he stood up to the Nazi regimes of the time.
If anything, Westen theology had to reorganize itself around the questions he forced back on to the table. His recovery of Trinitarian theology moved it to the organizing center of systematic theology. There was a renewed focus on Revelation and Scripture. He did not end liberal theology, but he reset the coordinates of Western Theology.
However modern theologians do have some criticism about Barth. His theology is too top down. It minimizes human history. The doctrine of Scripture is too ambiguous. He leaves little room for natural theology. He is insufficiently attentive to marginalized voices--this is a big one these days and his ethics are underdeveloped.
I would say Barth gave Western theologians a base from which to grow, but his words were not an end all to theology. It is still in process
One of the (many) things ecumenical partners find with the Orthodox is the insistence that we have some kind of 'prophetic role' in such dialogue in terms of directing everyone else 'back' to what we see as primordial pre-Schism Christianity.
That often comes across as arrogance. 'We've got nothing to learn from you lot, but you have so much to learn from us,' as it were.
I've heard Orthodox clergy say that we have much to learn from other Christian traditions in terms of practice, but nothing to learn theologically because we have the 'fullness of the faith' and everyone else has departed from that to a greater or lesser extent - some more than others - and so our 'job' in ecumenical relations is to affirm those areas where we all agree and respectfully point out 'errors' or divergence where this might appear.
This may very much sound as a one-way monologue rather than two-way dialogue in the accepted sense.
'We are right. You are wrong. One day you will agree with us,' sort of thing.
There are more nuanced approaches within Orthodoxy though, but always with the caveat that we ain't going to alter our faith anytime soon unless a future Ecumenical Council ever agrees to do so.
Which doesn't look likely in the near future.
That said, I have heard Orthodox theologians speak highly of Protestant scholarship in relation to the scriptures and that we can overplay some of the differences we see between us and Western figures like Aquinas.
Heck, I've even known one acknowledge that Calvin 'rings true' at times. As @Nick Tamen helpfully reminds us, often what people think the Reformed believe isn't necessarily representative.
For my own part, FWIW, I believe there is everything to be gained from ecumenical dialogue and interaction. On both sides.
We all need a 'continuous conversion' and those of us who maintain particularly strong claims about the 'rightness' of our own position probably more than most.
Christ is fully God and fully human.
The Church is a divine but all too human institution at one and the same time.
The Church isn't Christ but as the Body of Christ we must take it seriously as 'the pillar and ground of truth.'
However we understand it, visibly, invisibly, in continual need of reformation or else gradually becoming what it is and being 'conformed' to Christ - we are all in need of 'continual conversion' - being 'transformed by the renewing of our minds.'