Western Christianity has a two-fold distinction by which it classifies all of reality. Either something is part of the divine essence, and thus fully God, or it is part of creaturely reality, and thus not God. This distinction seems to be quite important to maintain since Scripture teaches that God is transcendent and completely "other" from the rest of his creation. One's options become extremely limited, however, when for example Peter tells us that we as Christians are "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1:4). How ought we classify this "nature" that we are partaking of? Forcing one to choose whether we partake of God's essence or not has lead to two extremes: either God is totally inaccessible (hyper-transcendence) or he is part of creation after all (hyper-immanence). Typically, the latter option is taken leading to such notions as divinization, where we as creatures become divine, or pantheism, where God is becomes part of creation.
Michael Horton has found in Eastern theology a helpful solution to this conundrum. Of the two-fold distinction which I mentioned, Eastern Christianity has always had a third option, that is, the energies of God. Divine energies are God's words and works whereby he interacts with his creatures. They are not part of God's hidden essence nor are they simply part of his creation, but as the rays from the sun are not part of the sun itself nor part of the world it's illuminating, so also God's energies deserve their own classification. Furthermore, the East has been careful to maintain that we as Christians do not experience God according to his essence, but rather, through his energies. Thus his power, love, glory and grace... are what we partake of and know, not his very essence. God reveals himself to us through his energies.
Reformed theology shares this notion with its emphasis upon the covenant. It teaches that God has chosen to interact with his creatures only by way of covenants and thus we as his people know God through his words (oaths, promises, commands, threatenings, consolations, etc.) and his works (creation, preservation, redemption, etc.). We do not and cannot know God according to his essence, but rather what he has revealed to us about himself (Duet 29:29). God is with us in that he is God for us, the God-in-action who is moving redemptive history along.
3 comments:
This essence energies distinction is wonderful, besides allowing catholicity in doctrine it allows us to uphold traditional theism and avoid the other distinctions, which limit the creator-creature distinction. I love how reformed theology is not just western but embraces the best of christian history on both sides, which is really just a history of biblical interpretation.
Hello Jonathan,
I ran across your blog via a wormhole on blogger and this post really grabbed my attention. About two years ago, I was received into the Eastern Orthodox Church. After growing up as a Protestant, I felt that Eastern Orthodoxy was the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which was founded by Christ.
Being very much a "newbie" in Orthodoxy, I am not in a position to speak as an authority. Nevertheless, I found your description of divine essence and energies to be accurate to my own understanding of those concepts. However, I do have a few questions for you. These are not designed to create a debate or argument, but to help me understand your position and be able to express my own experience with the EO Church.
You mentioned that the Reformed theology of covenant is akin to the Eastern Church's divine essence/energies. Can you help me understand how this is so? Being a Protestant for 28 years, I always believed that God had a covenant with His people. I was not from the Reformed tradition. The Bible and the Holy Spirit were instrumental in this covenant (it does sound as if your description of the Eucharist in the Reformed tradition does go beyond the view of most Protestants).
In the life of Eastern Orthodoxy, the notion of "theosis" is very much bound up with divine essence/energies. Over time, as a result of experiencing God in his energies, our fallen and sinful state is eventually transfigured and we become united to God. We become a god or God-like. In no way does theosis suggest that we are united to God in his essence. This is a work of God's grace and our human cooperation.
I appreciate reading your blog and having a forum ask some questions and share some of my own thoughts.
J.B., thanks for the comments. I must confess that I am fairly ignorant of Orthodoxy and only know what I've read and heard from Protestant authors (Gerald Bray & Michael S. Horton).
To better understand Reformed theology, it would be helpful to mention Luther's distinction of a theology of glory vs. a theology of the cross. A theology of glory claims that it has access to God's essence outside of the person and work of Christ (they want to see "God in the nude," to use Luther's words). A theology of the cross says that we only know the Father through the Son and that we do not have unmediated access to God's hidden essence, but rather, an accommodated encounter with God. We know God through his covenantal actions with us (the economic Trinity) not as He is in himself (ontological Trinity). We do not know God as he knows himself, but only as he has chosen to reveal himself in his acts towards us. The final "act" that we anticipate is glorification where our bodies and souls will be fully conformed to that of Christ's.
As far as the Eucharist, Reformed theology has always maintained a balance between the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the purely memorialist view of the majority of Evangelicals.
For more info, I heartily recommend the writings of Michael S. Horton.
Post a Comment