The Goal
This
posting is in support of the claim on Twitter that “Modern Orthodoxy has changed the meaning of essence to essence = unknown
& energies = God's attributes.” It
is a direct
response to the objection that, “The blog post you
linked doesn't prove the statement you just made. Where do you get your information? Provide references.”
Although
Twitter interchanges can be a bit cryptic this should be sufficiently clear for
further discussion. We will introduce
evidence showing that the creation and meaning of the terms “Essence and
Energies” is tied directly to the life and work of St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359),
after the disastrous schism of 1054.[1] We will also discover that the primary
references use in developing this idea have been removed from the internet, so
we are dependent on secondary sources.
This
response is not intended to be the last word on the questions involved, but a
forum for a wide variety of ideas to be voiced.
By considering the concerns of all and by collecting the wisdom of all
we hope to gather sufficient facts to resolve what is necessarily a
puzzle. We do not fault St. Gregory; he
evidently had good reasons for writing as he did. We have no desire to reverse his
conclusions. However, his concerns have
played out over the past six hundred fifty-three years. We see the effects, both disastrous and
joyous at work in society. We’ve had
time to think and to gather additional information, information not available
to either St. Gregory or his chief opponent Barlaam. The debate has had opportunity to cool
down. We believe that there are grave dangers
here, but we believe that we are capable of finding better answers.
What we ultimately
hope to achieve is the complete reunification of the Church on earth, not based
on compromise, but based on an earnest wrestling with truth. We hope to stir up enough interest in this
subject so that real heavyweight theologians will come to the forum table, and
eventually a true Ecumenical Council will be convened to resolve the matter. The Essence of God is the Essence of the
Church; it is worthy of clarification and absolute unity among all concerned
parties.
The Standard Western View
When I
first came to Orthodoxy, I heard the terms Essence and Energies
frequently. I never questioned the terms
because I immediately associated: Essence with the Nature or Attributes of God,
sometimes known as the Ontological Trinity; and the Energies with the Acts or
Works of God, sometimes known as the Economic Trinity.[2] So, from my first inquiries into Orthodoxy, I
was very (mistakenly) comfortable with these terms.
In due
time, I added Effects to the Essence-Energies sequence to include the idea that
God’s Energies result in the creative artifacts that God leaves behind. I had no problem absorbing the Orthodox idea
that all such Effects can and should be grouped together.[3] All of these artifacts come from the mouth of
God and are spoken or sung[4] into
existence. Hence, in terms of origin or
source there is no basic difference between Creation and Scripture. This is most certainly true. Therefore, the difference between Creation
and Scripture rests in the variation of of the things created and not in their fundamental
nature. Scripture is Creation in
words. Creation is Scripture in
matter. It is impossible for them to be
in conflict.
At this point, I could see no difference concerning the
nature of God between Eastern and Western Theology. Both confessed the same Nicean Creed; both
worshipped the same God: or did they?
Real Divergence over the
Old Testament Versions
Visible
differences appeared to lie elsewhere: as in the Orthodox preference for the
Septuagint, the Protestant preference for the Masoretic Text, and the Roman
Catholic preference for the Vulgate.
These divergent opinions about the Old Testament were easy to resolve,
because it is easy to demonstrate from history or tradition that the Septuagint
is the Old Testament Scripture of the Church.[5] What is puzzling about this clear history is
that the Reformers turned to the Masoretic Text for the authority of choice in
the sixteenth century. I still cannot
find any good reason for this strange twist of history, and continue to
research it.[6]
I
proceeded to write lengthy essays on the Nature of God pointing out that both
Essence and Energies are immediately unknown and unknowable, undefined and
undefinable. The use of the word
immediate in this context means without a mediator or mediation. In other words, we know nothing directly
about either God’s Essence or Energies.
Everything we do know about God’s Essence and Energies comes from God’s
Self-Revelation in the Divine Effects: Creation and Scripture.
I was very surprised to hear that I needed to study my
theology. I’ve given my life to the
study of theology since 1968. Also
puzzling was a statement from the Ecumenical Patriarch,[7] reporting on East/West relations, that
Eastern and Western churches are growing farther apart, not closer together.
These two motivators prompted a reexamination of theology.[8]
East-West Dispute over
Energies is a Significant Fact
The origin of Essence-Energies can be traced as far back as
St. Gregory Palamas, may his memory be eternal (1296-1359). Unfortunately, his writings are not that well
known. The leading American authority on
St. Gregory appears to be Fr. John Meyendorff.[9]
“He drew a distinction between knowing God in his essence
(in Greek, ουσία) and knowing God in his energies (in Greek, ενέργειαι).
He maintained the Orthodox doctrine that
it remains impossible to know God in his essence (God in himself), but possible
to know God in his energies (to know what God does, and who he is in relation
to the creation and to man), as God reveals himself to humanity. In doing so, he made reference to the Cappadocian
Fathers and other early Christian writers.”[10]
This quote establishes the fact that the doctrinal difference
between Essence, Efforts, and Effects as opposed to Essence, Energies, Efforts,
and Effects exists as a credible historic entity circa 1350. That it involves the wording of the Nicean
Creed makes it the single most important doctrinal difference between East and
West. Is it a minor matter as Berkhof
suggests? We believe that it is a minor
matter in the West. However, the
continual repeated emphasis in the East indicates to us that it is not a minor
matter there, modern Orthodox intend to make a point of it. The reunification of East and West cannot be
accomplished without the resolution of this significant doctrinal
difference. We believe that this is
sufficiently proved by the above quote.
Contemporary Impact
We support, at least in part, St. Gregory’s concerns over
excessive intellectualism and rationalism.
That he was “on to something” is born out in the West by the ensuing
development of the Enlightenment (18th Century) and related issues. The development of the Enlightenment and its
impact on the East remains somewhat of an unknown. The knowledge and understanding of man was
greatly advanced during the Enlightenment, and many social benefits were
derived from it. However, man
increasingly considered himself the measure of all things, man no longer needed
God (he thought). Consequently, the
authority of Scripture, the Church, and tradition are all questioned and defied,
and this is now called the Post-Christian Era.
Barlaam of Calabria, may his memory also be eternal (1290-1348)
is the best-known opponent of St. Gregory.
If studying and understanding St. Gregory is a difficult feat, in part
because much of his work remains un-translated, Barlaam’s writings are even
less widely known and even more of a mystery.
Their disagreement resulted in three Synods: Sophia I (June 1341),
Sophia II (August 1341), and Blachernae (1351).
In these Synods, the views of St. Gregory prevailed over Barlaam’s
views. We note some important things: Barlaam
had fallen asleep by 1351; this was a dispute within Orthodoxy; that St.
Gregory prevailed does not make Barlaam completely in error or St. Gregory completely
correct; the issues were difficult to resolve; these are Synods, not Ecumenical
Counsels.[11]
Interest in St. Gregory is increasing and more of his works
are coming into print in the English language.
However, these books are expensive, and even a complete set does not
guarantee that understanding will take place.
A few years ago, the only work found on line was St. Gregory Palamas, The
One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, tr. Robert Edward Sinkewicz.[12] This resource is no longer available. The only resource found was a summary of this
book; most of the text is excluded in the summary.[13]
Can the origins of these ideas be found in St. John of
Damascus or even among his predecessors?
To pursue this thread we would need to find a Patristics expert, a
specialist authority on St. John.[14] At present, we must abandon this idea as not
established. If these ideas cannot be
clearly established from St. John or other credible predecessors of St. Gregory,
then we must consider them to be innovations, circa 1350.
There can be no question, however, that the condemnation of
Barlaam also led to the widespread condemnation of St. Augustine by many in the
Orthodox churches.[15]
Filioque No-longer so
Significant
Surely, someone will argue that the Filioque clause in the
Nicean Creed is far more important.
However, we, on our part, are quite ready to concede that the Filioque
clause should be removed.[16] The Roman Catholic churches have made this
clause optional in worship. It’s just a
matter of time before other confessional churches follow suit. Many non-confessional churches have already
abandoned it. Moreover, the Filioque
clause looks suspiciously like a typical scribal copying error, not a
theological insertion. The whole issue
is becoming rapidly moot.
Ongoing Concerns
Our second purpose in this letter is not to refight the
debates between Barlaam and St. Gregory, but exhuming them and reexamining
them, we might find better resolutions of the problem. This would have been more profitably
accomplished if we still had access to The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters
and similar works on line.
Excessive use of Apophatic Logic is
Wrong
“Kinds
of Logic
“Apophatic,
that is negative theology or logic, describes things only in the form of denial
of some element or principle: to use a common example found in some liturgies,
“God is uncreated.” Cataphatic, that is
positive theology or logic, describes things only in the form of affirmation of
some element or principle: to use another common example found in the same
liturgies, “God is consubstantial.” Wikipedia
and Marikablogs have detailed discussions of these topics.
“Comparison
of Logical Approaches
“Obviously,
both methods have value. There are
problems in logic that can only be solved with an apophatic method; while
others yield more readily to a cataphatic approach. So in the Scripture we find that, “God cannot
lie,” as well as, “God is love.” To deny
the value of either approach requires a wisdom greater than that of the
Apostles, and must be cast aside by thinking Christians. Such exclusivistic approaches may give us
some interesting things to think about, and this is a good thing. Yet, to push such approaches beyond
meditation and into an exclusivistic dogma is destructive. Reality is not always either apophatic or
cataphatic exclusively. Reality is best
approached with a both apophatic and cataphatic technique. It is impossible to make, “God is not
created,” cataphatic; and it is silly to make, “God is love,” apophatic. At the end of the day, the frank simplicity
of Scripture must reign over all.”[17]
We regret that we no longer have direct access to the resource
materials, which best illustrate the point.
Apophatic theology can and has been pressed to ludicrous extremes.
Energies an Unnecessary and
Dangerous Invention
We already showed that Western theologians are equally
concerned about the unknowability of the Essence of God. We commonly claim that God’s Essence or
Nature is immediately unknowably.
Nevertheless, it is wrong to claim that God’ Essence is not proclaimed
and learned from the medium of Scripture, and to a lesser extent from the
medium of Creation. We also affirm that
our knowledge of God’s Essence; indeed, all human knowledge is always
incomplete and imperfect: for, “we look through a mirror dimly.” We fail to see the benefit or necessity of
establishing Energies as a separate category of Divine Attributes. It appears to us that this separation does
damage to the original meaning in the Nicean Creed. If the Essence of God is vacated of all meaning,
it is difficult for us to distinguish this from some form of Nihilism. Even if Nihilism is not in view, we cannot
grasp the idea of God as, “One in Essence and Undivided,” if Essence has no
humanly fathomable meaning whatsoever.[18] We do not see that any real harm is done to
Eastern theology by abandoning the idea of Energies, but rather a great deal of
good can be done by such a bold step. We
believe that St. Gregory’s concern over intellectualism and rationalism is
sufficiently guarded by the use of the word immediate when speaking of the
Essence of God.
Hesychasm is not Orthodoxy
We did not say that Hesychasm is not Orthodox.[19] However, this, the second triumph of
Orthodoxy is a very small part of Orthodoxy.
If anyone believes that “The Jesus Prayer” is the exclusive path to
Theosis, they are sadly mistaken. Anyone
that practices “The Jesus Prayer” to the exclusion of all other prayers will
shrivel up spiritually and die. One
cannot follow an Orthodox prayer book, book of worship, or monastic Horologia
and possibly draw such a conclusion.[20] We use “The Jesus Prayer” frequently
throughout the day as a defense against evil and when the distractions of life
tend to draw us away from unceasing prayer, but we do not use it exclusively. When time permits, “The Lord’s Prayer” is far
more important for Spiritual life and health.
When more time is available, the prayer book and Horologia are our
unfailing strength and encouragement.
Hesychasm does not even begin to scratch the surface of the depth and
richness of Orthodox prayer life.
Monasticism is not Orthodoxy
Again, we did not say that Monasticism is not Orthodox. The Scriptures indicate that it is proper for
man and wife to be separated for the purposes of prayer. This is a rule for all Christians, not just
monastics. If a person has the strength
to give their lives to prayer, so be it.
Yet, not everyone can be a monastic.
Nevertheless, we claim that no servant of the Church has ever developed
without any experience of Monasticism.
This is often denied in the West, but still we lock our young people
away in College study halls, and Seminaries.
These Monastic experiences, no matter how frequently interrupted, these
periods of Spiritual solitude are essential to the development of the man and
woman of God. Even when well established
in some active ministry or other, the servant of God finds it necessary to be
alone with God in order to fulfill the ministry. Monasticism is part and parcel of the healthy
Church. Yet, if it exists for purposes
other than prayer, then it has become an odious waste of time.[21]
Conclusion
There is ample evidence that divergence over the Energies of
God exists between East and West. Both
sides can benefit from a healthy respectful discussion of this and ongoing
concerns. The ultimate impact of this
divergence can only be resolved by such discussion. Reunification of the Church on earth is the outcome
for which we hope.
[1] Many historians and theologians
consider the Great Schism of 1054 to be of little moment. We, on the other hand, consider it to be of
the greatest, most crucial, and cardinal moment: for in it the Church on earth
lost the ability to speak the Gospel with a single unified voice. That St. Gregory arises after 1054 and not
long after the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) is of no small bearing on his
theological development and the decisions of the three Synods: Sophia I (June
1341), Sophia II (August 1341), and Blachernae (1351). We can only arrive at better answers if and when
the disastrous Schism of 1054 is reversed.
Until such a time, all the actions of the churches since 1054 must be
considered provisional, and subject to revision or final approval.
[2]
This is a very common Western view expressed in numerous textbooks of
theology. It might even be considered
the standard Western position. See, for
example, L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids: 784 pages). Berkhof addresses
this issue on page 41. He also speaks to
the “separate” discussion of God’s Being and attributes. He points out that several Western theologians
follow this path. He notes that, “This
difference of treatment is not indicative of any serious fundamental
disagreement between them.” This seems
to be true in the West. However, the
East appears to be a different matter, and this needs clarification.
[3] Fr. Staniloae: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dumitru_Staniloae;
The
Experience of God (Holy Cross, Brookline)
[4] C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia
[5] The Septuagint arose in the 3rd
Century BC and is the best and oldest witness to a Hebrew-Aramaic original,
since the Church chose and used The Septuagint contemporary discoveries of
various Hebrew documents is irrelevant to this fact. The New Testament is
entirely written in a Greek original.
The Vulgate arises in the 4th Century AD, and may be the second most
reliable witness to a Hebrew-Aramaic original.
The Masoretic Text is a 9th Century AD publication, and as such stands
as a translation or version, not as the best witness. As a version, it must be considered the least
reliable witness to the text of the Hebrew-Aramaic original, especially as it
existed between the years 6 BC and 33 AD.
The original Hebrew manuscript and/or it official copy was most likely
destroyed by the Babylonians around 586 BC.
What survives as an Hebrew-Aramaic Old Testament from 516 BC onward is
most likely an attempt to reconstruct a master copy from the ruins of Jerusalem
and vicinity after the return from Babylon.
However, this reconstruction is without Divine supervision until Christ
appears between 6 and 4 BC. By this time,
the Septuagint was well established: for, the first language of many Jews had
now changed from Hebrew (586), to Aramaic (323), to Greek, and remained Greek
throughout Roman domination, since the Romans much preferred Greek to their
native Latin.
[6] Roger T. Beckwith, The
Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Wipf & Stock,
Eugene, Oregon; reprinted from SPCK, London, 528 pages)
[7] Sorry, but I don’t have a
better source. This was possibly a note
from a Sunday bulletin.
[8] Some of the sources consulted
were: Augustine, various portions of City of God and “Letters”; Rev. A.
James Bernstein, Surprised by Christ (Conciliar Press, Be Lomond, CA: 335
pages); Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye (Cistercian,
Kalamazoo, MI: 209 pages); Clark Carlton, The Life (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 191
pages); Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros, The River of Fire (internet, 23
pages); Fr. Theodore Pulcini, Orthodoxy and Catholicism (Conciliar
Press, Be Lomond, CA: 24 pages); Metropolitan Emilianos Timiadis, Towards
Authentic Christian Spirituality (Holy Cross, Brookline: 154 pages).
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_of_Calabria
[12] This book seems to present a different picture
of Palamas. Chapter 73 supports the idea
that effects flow from energy. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_Palamas; http://openlibrary.org/b/OL2129025M/one_hundred_and_ fifty_chapters (This source no longer exists.)
[14] http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_of_Damascus
[16] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
[17] Blog: SwanteC.Blogspot.com, Let’s
Take Nicea Apart, Part III A
[18]
We have just conceded that all human knowledge is incomplete and imperfect.
[19] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Hesychasm
[20] http://orthodox.seasidehosting.st/seaside/small_compline?_s=DoLHlkyT3lVbu-vR&_k=EZhTHjgx. In the completed prayers of the hours, all
150 Psalms are prayed each week. Psalm
119 is prayed every day, while penitential and other Psalms are also repeated
more frequently. This is most certainly
not Hesychasm.
[21]
Both Hesychasm and contemporary monastic practices are shaped by St. Gregory.
No comments:
Post a Comment