What do you think?
Rate this book
Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes
In the last decade, Eastern Orthodoxy has moved from being virtually unknown to Western Christians to being a significant presence on the religious scene in North America and Great Britain. In light of Orthodoxy's growing presence, this book will introduce Western Christians to the Eastern Orthodox vision of the Christian life by examining Orthodox theology and worship and will also alert readers to the cultural and historical factors that shape any interpretation of the Christian faith.
216 pages, Paperback
First published September 28, 2002
5 people are currently reading
113 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 12, 2020
Fairbairn offers a really helpful primer on the important things to know about our brothers and sisters in Christ across the Bosphorus. He also gives a good handful of insights on how EO believers view Protestants. Perhaps the most helpful takeaway was a very simple (perhaps oversimplification) observation about the respective traditions. In the West our salvation largely consists of "looking back" to the work of Christ upon the cross; whereas for the Orthodox, they view salvation as something we are "looking forward" to. The West is very text based, the East very image based.
Fairbairn is quite gracious towards EO, and I think does a good job of painting them in the best possible light. But he also doesn't paint a Thomas Kinkade vision of EO; he highlights how often the understanding of Orthodoxy by the average practitioner is grossly in error (especially as regards icons), even while EO theologians try to be careful to avoid those errors. He also reminds Protestants of the areas where we are prone to fall into error.
That said, this is a helpful starting place to understanding the key distinctions, but Fairbairn doesn't go as far in making it plain how truly grievous the errors are in EO. While we certainly should seek to understand where our Eastern brethren are coming from and what they are (and aren't saying), we must not be naïve in thinking that our differences are insignificant. Altogether, I'd recommend this as a good beginning place; it was helpful to me in getting a grasp on the key similarities and differences between Geneva and Constantinople.
Fairbairn is quite gracious towards EO, and I think does a good job of painting them in the best possible light. But he also doesn't paint a Thomas Kinkade vision of EO; he highlights how often the understanding of Orthodoxy by the average practitioner is grossly in error (especially as regards icons), even while EO theologians try to be careful to avoid those errors. He also reminds Protestants of the areas where we are prone to fall into error.
That said, this is a helpful starting place to understanding the key distinctions, but Fairbairn doesn't go as far in making it plain how truly grievous the errors are in EO. While we certainly should seek to understand where our Eastern brethren are coming from and what they are (and aren't saying), we must not be naïve in thinking that our differences are insignificant. Altogether, I'd recommend this as a good beginning place; it was helpful to me in getting a grasp on the key similarities and differences between Geneva and Constantinople.
December 29, 2023
This was a wonderful book written by former missionary to Dontesk, Ukraine and the Academic Dean of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary Charlotte. Fairbairn compares the source of the Orthodox vision of Christianity, its heart, and its vision/distortions. He spends time on the concept of theosis and also the value of icons, which have been particularly intriguing for western Christians. Furthermore, Fairbairn's analysis helps to make sense of popular orthodoxy and nationalism. With the current tensions in the world, Fairbairn helps to make sense of the religious background that energizes Russian nationalism.
If one knows a reasonable layman's understanding of views of tradition, Scripture, teaching on God, humanity, salvation, and church, one will get a lot out of this succinct guide. Also, if one has a basic understanding of Eastern and Western civilization, one will glean a great deal from this succinct book.
Fairbairn completes his book with four appendices: recommended reading, suggestions for Christian workers in the East, the structure and organization of Orthodoxy, and the Orthodox Liturgical Calendar. As a result, this book functions very well as a primer for further reading on this subject.
I highly recommend it for those regularly intersecting with Eastern European nations. Also, it is a great value for westerners wanting to compare their beliefs with those from the East.
If one knows a reasonable layman's understanding of views of tradition, Scripture, teaching on God, humanity, salvation, and church, one will get a lot out of this succinct guide. Also, if one has a basic understanding of Eastern and Western civilization, one will glean a great deal from this succinct book.
Fairbairn completes his book with four appendices: recommended reading, suggestions for Christian workers in the East, the structure and organization of Orthodoxy, and the Orthodox Liturgical Calendar. As a result, this book functions very well as a primer for further reading on this subject.
I highly recommend it for those regularly intersecting with Eastern European nations. Also, it is a great value for westerners wanting to compare their beliefs with those from the East.
Read
June 28, 2022Книгата е добре написана, напълно изчистена от враждебност и критика и с добро ползване на първичните (православни) източници. Има някои дребни детайли, които според мен изискват прецизиране, но като цяло е добро и честно въведение от западна, протестантска гледна точка в източното православие.
November 21, 2023
I had a different book on Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) on my to-read list for many years but have just never been able to locate a copy. This book looked similar and was easily obtainable through my local library, so I decided to go for it. I’m glad I did. I’ve been interested in EO since my college days and wanted to know more about their actual theology and how it compared and contrasted to Protestant and Roman Catholic Christianity.
Fairbairn (a Reformed Protestant in background) organized much of this book around what he has experienced as the 3 biggest differences (in emphasis) between the East and the West:
1. Christianity in the West emphasizes the individual and their personal relationship to God, while the East is far more Church & group focused. It is through the Church that a believer becomes ever more conformed to Christ in the process of theosis, or deification (best interpreted as what the West would term sanctification).
2. The West is very scripture-Word oriented and views the Faith through a juridical (legal) lens, while the East is concerned with the mystical journey of the Christian from death to life. The Christian is to participate in the divine life of the Church with the goal ultimately being union with God. This is an important difference. The liturgy of the EO church is meant to prepare and acclimate the Christian to their eternal heavenly worship of God.
3. While western Christianity (especially Protestantism) is text-focused, the East is pictorial/image focused. Everything in an EO church is by design and is meant to represent the heavenly kingdom on earth. It’s not that EO views the image separate from the Word/verbal, but rather that it is all part of the same proclamation of Christ and both are expressions of tradition and the life of the Church. EO iconography is meant to teach, to facilitate worship, and to draw the Christian into the great cloud of believers who have passed on before them but who still live as part of the eternal Church in eternity. They view praying to saints as quite properly entering into and participating in the “communion of the saints” as described in the Apostles Creed. Unfortunately, while “mature” EO theology does NOT teach worship of Icons or the diety of the saints, it often does end up that way for many of their followers who do not see the difference between veneration and worship, with many supernatural elements often attached to the icons themselves in “popular Orthodoxy.” I would also say they assign an improper status to Mary, in many ways similar to Catholicism, even straying into “Mariolatry” in its worst expressions.
As I understand it, for Orthodoxy, in many ways the Divine Liturgy IS the Church. The Eucharist is one of the most important tasks of the local church. As Christ offered his body as the head of the Church, so the church becomes his body through participating in the Eucharist, and joins The Body (the fullness of the Holy Spirit), the Union of divinity just as the Trinity is both 3 and 1. The Eucharist is a MYSTERY, and it is also eschatological.
The way in which the Orthodox view the Church is why they do not view authority as does the West. Tradition is the Church and the Church is Christ & Holy Spirit, in who are Truth. It is not that the Orthodox view tradition as superior to scripture, as many in the West think that they do, it is that for the Orthodox, there would just never be a circumstance where the two would ever come into contradiction.
I agree with Fairbairn that EO has a far more developed and generally better understanding of the Trinity.
Very interesting is the concept of theosis and how it is viewed through the Fall and in the Atonement. Here there are important differences in perspective and emphasis. EO looks at humanity through a process of “vocation” – that the job of man is to grow ever closer in relationship and in “likeness” to God in the process of deification – becoming divine (not becoming God, but participating in the divine, which was the purpose of our creation). They would teach that Adam was not created perfect but was merely without sin – he still had the task/job of building an ever-closer relationship to God. Orthodoxy teaches that when Adam sinned, he freely chose to derail this vocation. The incarnation re-opened the ability of man to again take up his real vocation (though of course not to be fully realized until the resurrection and eternal kingdom). Orthodoxy does accept that Jesus was offered up as the pure lamb of God to pay the price for our sin, but they place their emphasis elsewhere – on theosis or, if you will, sanctification. I really liked Fairbairn’s characterization of Protestantism being “backward-looking” to justification, while Orthodoxy is “forward-looking” to deification/sanctification in orientation/emphasis.
This leads to one of the chief problems with EO. It is very easy for believers in the EO church to fall into a Church and/or a works-based salvation concept, because of this emphasis on the process of theosis through the necessity of the liturgy and the Church. The EO church is large, and many of the churches do not teach the “mature” theology of the church, with the leaders themselves having mistaken ideas about it.
I would just add that reading this really added additional color and perspective to my interest in the history of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire as well.
Soli Deo Gloria
Fairbairn (a Reformed Protestant in background) organized much of this book around what he has experienced as the 3 biggest differences (in emphasis) between the East and the West:
1. Christianity in the West emphasizes the individual and their personal relationship to God, while the East is far more Church & group focused. It is through the Church that a believer becomes ever more conformed to Christ in the process of theosis, or deification (best interpreted as what the West would term sanctification).
2. The West is very scripture-Word oriented and views the Faith through a juridical (legal) lens, while the East is concerned with the mystical journey of the Christian from death to life. The Christian is to participate in the divine life of the Church with the goal ultimately being union with God. This is an important difference. The liturgy of the EO church is meant to prepare and acclimate the Christian to their eternal heavenly worship of God.
3. While western Christianity (especially Protestantism) is text-focused, the East is pictorial/image focused. Everything in an EO church is by design and is meant to represent the heavenly kingdom on earth. It’s not that EO views the image separate from the Word/verbal, but rather that it is all part of the same proclamation of Christ and both are expressions of tradition and the life of the Church. EO iconography is meant to teach, to facilitate worship, and to draw the Christian into the great cloud of believers who have passed on before them but who still live as part of the eternal Church in eternity. They view praying to saints as quite properly entering into and participating in the “communion of the saints” as described in the Apostles Creed. Unfortunately, while “mature” EO theology does NOT teach worship of Icons or the diety of the saints, it often does end up that way for many of their followers who do not see the difference between veneration and worship, with many supernatural elements often attached to the icons themselves in “popular Orthodoxy.” I would also say they assign an improper status to Mary, in many ways similar to Catholicism, even straying into “Mariolatry” in its worst expressions.
As I understand it, for Orthodoxy, in many ways the Divine Liturgy IS the Church. The Eucharist is one of the most important tasks of the local church. As Christ offered his body as the head of the Church, so the church becomes his body through participating in the Eucharist, and joins The Body (the fullness of the Holy Spirit), the Union of divinity just as the Trinity is both 3 and 1. The Eucharist is a MYSTERY, and it is also eschatological.
The way in which the Orthodox view the Church is why they do not view authority as does the West. Tradition is the Church and the Church is Christ & Holy Spirit, in who are Truth. It is not that the Orthodox view tradition as superior to scripture, as many in the West think that they do, it is that for the Orthodox, there would just never be a circumstance where the two would ever come into contradiction.
I agree with Fairbairn that EO has a far more developed and generally better understanding of the Trinity.
Very interesting is the concept of theosis and how it is viewed through the Fall and in the Atonement. Here there are important differences in perspective and emphasis. EO looks at humanity through a process of “vocation” – that the job of man is to grow ever closer in relationship and in “likeness” to God in the process of deification – becoming divine (not becoming God, but participating in the divine, which was the purpose of our creation). They would teach that Adam was not created perfect but was merely without sin – he still had the task/job of building an ever-closer relationship to God. Orthodoxy teaches that when Adam sinned, he freely chose to derail this vocation. The incarnation re-opened the ability of man to again take up his real vocation (though of course not to be fully realized until the resurrection and eternal kingdom). Orthodoxy does accept that Jesus was offered up as the pure lamb of God to pay the price for our sin, but they place their emphasis elsewhere – on theosis or, if you will, sanctification. I really liked Fairbairn’s characterization of Protestantism being “backward-looking” to justification, while Orthodoxy is “forward-looking” to deification/sanctification in orientation/emphasis.
This leads to one of the chief problems with EO. It is very easy for believers in the EO church to fall into a Church and/or a works-based salvation concept, because of this emphasis on the process of theosis through the necessity of the liturgy and the Church. The EO church is large, and many of the churches do not teach the “mature” theology of the church, with the leaders themselves having mistaken ideas about it.
I would just add that reading this really added additional color and perspective to my interest in the history of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire as well.
Soli Deo Gloria
April 20, 2020
I recently read this book for the second time. It is the kind of book that, at least for me, should be read slowly, carefully and multiply times. Dr. Fairbairn walks the read through the Eastern Orthodox worldview in a systematic and careful way. He pays special attention to the audience as a western thinker interacting with Eastern Orthodox influenced culture. His presentation is through and balanced and he does a great job of bringing the western reading to a place where he can appreciate the Orthodox position, without necessarily accepting it. Appendix B alone is worth the price of the book, "Suggestions for Christian Workers in the East". However, the profound nature of his suggestions will probably be missed without the background supplied by a careful read of the book. As I said, I have read the book twice, but I am sure there is a third and fourth reading, Lord willing, in the future for me.
July 23, 2018
When the author is laying out the facts this is an informative, albeit dense book. My problem comes when the author presents his opinions as undeniable truths. For someone who is interested in seeing Christianity from multiple perspectives, he can be extremely short sighted.
July 17, 2020
Very helpful and thoughtful introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy.
February 13, 2026
Mostly OK — 6/10
December 23, 2015
I always enjoy reading about this "other" version of Christianity, the one less commonly known in Western culture and its brand of the faith which has come to dominate the global popular conscious. Eastern Orthodoxy is "eastern" in more than just geography, history or theology--it's different in ways that can only be described with words like tone, or atmosphere. Subtle, yet distinct in important ways.
This book is especially helpful for those who grew up outside the Eastern tradition and in a non-liturgical Christian sect. It was written by a Protestant with the aim of better understanding the particular concerns and "language" of the Orthodox, and sorting through the objections Protestants often have with liturgical traditions, many of which are unfair or unfounded. The author points out, for instance, that it was Eastern theologians who did much of the early "leg work" when it came to Christian doctrines commonly held by Protestants today, such as the Trinity.
He addresses some other common sticking points like icons and the role of Scriptural authority, and includes some helpful tables on practical matters like hierarchy and different clerical jobs. Ultimately you will need to read books by Orthodox writers to carry you further on this subject, but he urges this himself and makes recommendations in the bibliography, including the often cited The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware.
This book is especially helpful for those who grew up outside the Eastern tradition and in a non-liturgical Christian sect. It was written by a Protestant with the aim of better understanding the particular concerns and "language" of the Orthodox, and sorting through the objections Protestants often have with liturgical traditions, many of which are unfair or unfounded. The author points out, for instance, that it was Eastern theologians who did much of the early "leg work" when it came to Christian doctrines commonly held by Protestants today, such as the Trinity.
He addresses some other common sticking points like icons and the role of Scriptural authority, and includes some helpful tables on practical matters like hierarchy and different clerical jobs. Ultimately you will need to read books by Orthodox writers to carry you further on this subject, but he urges this himself and makes recommendations in the bibliography, including the often cited The Orthodox Way by Kallistos Ware.
February 17, 2009
This is a great book at explaining the differences and similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Protestantism. The author is quick to point out strengths and weaknesses in each school of thought and shows how one does not need to trump the other.
Highly recommended for those who want to understand Orthodoxy better and especially for those who will be spending time with people who hold such beliefs.
Highly recommended for those who want to understand Orthodoxy better and especially for those who will be spending time with people who hold such beliefs.
August 23, 2020
2020
Am re-reading. Excellent and worthwhile
*******
2010 ****See http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/..., as I am reading this along with "Church History in Plain Language", and "Ye Are the Body".
Am re-reading. Excellent and worthwhile
*******
2010 ****See http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/..., as I am reading this along with "Church History in Plain Language", and "Ye Are the Body".
August 22, 2013
One of the most insightful book on Eastern Orthodoxy written by a contemporary Protestant theologian.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews