Orthodoxy and Hipsterdoxy

In contemporary Orthodoxy, we often hear a theological metanarrative that divides “Eastern” (i.e., Orthodoxy) and “Western” (i.e., Catholicism and Protestantism) Christianity into two halves that clash at their theological cores, or, as one author puts it, their “phronemas”. While prevalent in contemporary, popular-level writings, this metanarrative likely has its conception from Orthodox theologians and academics of the 19^th century and took full-root in the 20^th century. Exponents of this metanarrative reduce Western theology to a vaguely defined “rationalist”, “legalistic”, “Augustinian” framework, while defining Eastern theology as mystical, experiential, and giving primacy to the Greek fathers, particularly the Cappadocians.

It is a metanarrative because it provides an overarching explanation of what enables any theological disagreement between Orthodoxy and the West; thus, it is more fundamental to any specific doctrinal disagreement. It is a metanarrative because it walks the reader through the diverging theological developments of Church history between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. Euphemistically, I will refer to this metanarrative as hipsterdoxy. I call it hipsterdoxy because it comes from within Orthodoxy and seeks to differentiate Orthodoxy from the perceived theological mainstream of the West, ostensibly for the sake of being different. It is my aim to show this metanarrative is erroneous. I will do this with a short elaboration of the metanarrative and then address five theological doctrines often used to justify it. My hope is the reader will see, to quote Marcus Plested in his Orthodox Readings of Aquinas, “the Christian East is not quite as ‘Eastern’, nor the West as ‘Western’, as is generally assumed”.