Theosis. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
(Zizioulas)—in Russell’s opinion, is not so much evidence of divergence, as “the fruit of profound meditation on different strands of the patristic tradition” that are mainly complementary.11
The theme of union with God, according to Russell, was systematically introduced to patristic theology by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and from him firmly integrated in the Orthodox understanding of theosis. The nature of divine-human union, which neither presupposes identification of human beings with God nor human dissolution into the divine, is predominantly interpreted in later patristic and modern Orthodox thought in Palamite terms: “We become the same as God but different, a unity-in-diversity through participating in the divine energies.”12
Especially useful in this context is Russell’s summary-discussion-analysis of the somewhat “dissident” or maverick and, at the same time, innovative and original contributions to the theosis discourse made by Nicholas Berdyaev and Sergey Bulgakov, that still continue to stir tensions in Orthodox circles. Russell concludes his book by pointing out the practical aspect of theosis as the soteriological dimension of Christian life within the ecclesial community, with an eschatological perspective. This aspect of theosis is not the prerogative of spiritual elite, but “it is intended for all believers without exception.”13 On the theological side, the multi-faceted and dynamic character of deification discourse within Eastern Orthodoxy, and inter-denominational interest in theosis, should be welcomed as this discourse is far from being finalized.
The Eastern Orthodox interest in theosis, without doubt, makes an important contribution to the study of this subject. However, it does not hold anymore to the exclusive role often claimed by Orthodox theologians. As it has been already pointed out by Russell, even in modern Orthodox theology, theosis is far from being an univocally settled issue. Recent interest in deification also confirms that this theme attracts attention for its own sake, sometimes without a direct connection to Orthodox tradition. In this regard, I especially welcome the conclusion that one of the Eastern Orthodox theologians has recently drawn with respect to deification: “Clearly, the notion of theosis is no longer ‘owned’ by the Christian East, if such one-sided ownership was ever a historical possibility.”14 Even though Gavrilyuk’s re-visitation of contemporary discourse on the deification theme is still overshadowed by implications of past ecumenical developments, and the presumption that Eastern Orthodoxy has a “copyright” on it, his assessment is particularly helpful in emphasizing theosis as a significant issue of ongoing theological conversation on its own grounds, apart from denominational boundaries and a directly ecumenical incentive.
One noteworthy recent publication on theosis that attempts to offer a constructive theological examination is Paul Collins’s Partaking in Divine Nature: Deification and Communion (2010). Collins briefly reviews deificational precedents in popular pre-Christian Roman and Greek piety, Greek philosophy, Christian Scripture, and early patristic theology. His main focus is on an analysis of deification in Eastern Orthodoxy, which he presents in a reverse historical perspective, starting with the modern period and sequentially moving back to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor. Acknowledging the central role of theosis in Eastern Orthodox theology, often viewed as the core expression of self-understanding and the peculiar identity of this tradition, Collins proceeds to survey theosis in Western theology. His overview of Western Christian tradition includes not only medieval witness to deification, but also examination of explicit and implicit evidence of what he terms as “an architecture of the metaphor of deification” in the Reformation (including the Radical Reformation), Pietism, the Oxford movement, the Holiness movement, and concludes with contemporary Roman Catholic expression.
In this book, Collins is drawing a survey of deification that stretches over two-and-a-half millennia. This does not leave much room for a detailed assessment of peculiarities related to theosis diversity; nevertheless, his book presents an important reminder of, and testimony to, the vitality of the deification theme in both Eastern and Western Christian traditions. Particular interest in this book is due to Collins’s methodology of functionalization, and construal of the deification metaphor for contemporary theology, within the methodology of mystical theology, dynamic participation in the Trinity, sacramental theology, and the practice of virtuous life in Christ. This book presents one of the first theological constructive assessments of theosis and its importance for contemporary Christianity.
Michael Gorman’s well researched, annotated, and contextualized book, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (2009), presents a comprehensive assessment of the main Pauline tenets, such as kenosis, sanctification, justification, holiness, and participation, where theosis receives central treatment in the integrated soteriological perspective of Paul’s theology. In the beginning of the book Gorman offers a trinitarian and christocentrically-minded definition of theosis: “Theosis is transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ.”15 And throughout his book Gorman is successfully arguing, as he sums it up: “for a single Pauline soteriology of participation in the life of the triune cruciform God known in the cross of Christ, and we have called this theosis.”16
Portraying God’s kenotic descent in Christ, and his acting in what can be seen as a shockingly ungodly manner for the common human perception of divinity, Paul elevates the significance of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, and proclaims Christ to be the Lord, in contrast to the typical Roman understanding of imperial power and honor. The contrast between the divinity of Christ, kenotically manifested in his humanity, and the divinity of the Roman imperial cult, is especially important for an understanding of vertical and horizontal dimensions of divine economy and its manifestation in Christian community. It is also important for understanding the role of Christian community in the participatory and reciprocal process of transformative deification: a process that is both reminiscent of traditional Christian understanding of the imitatio Christi, and the representation of theosis as christification.
Gorman’s dealing with justification in Paul is exceptionally good. He proposes very valuable methodology for his interpretation of justification, the cross, and salvation in Paul, that also can be effectively applied to the study of theosis.17 Implementing his five-principle methodology: 1) recognition of contextual specificity; 2) the practice of prudent connectivity; 3) recognition of theological complementarity; 4) recognition of the experiential character of Paul’s theology; and 5) recognition of flexible coherency, allows Gorman to construct Paul’s understanding of justification in a very deiforming perspective. Gorman masterfully argues against reducing justification to a simply forensic expression that significantly minimizes the soteriological importance of this theological theme in the context of Christ’s salvific mission. Gorman expands the common Protestant cliché of forensic justification to a more complex, but well grounded in Pauline and Christian tradition, understanding of justification as a participatory and transformative experience, closely connected with sanctification and holiness. Thus, justification is understood as deification, where there is no separation of God’s justice from love, and love from faith, and faith from action. Holiness and sanctification are not additions to justification, but its actualization. The interconnectedness of justification, sanctification, and holiness with kenotic, transformative, reconciliatory and theoforming participation in faithfulness of Christ, expressed in the trinitarian contextualization of cruciform theosis in Pauline theology, presents one integrated soteriology.
Gorman’s interpretation of Paul’s understanding of kenosis, justification, reconciliation, sanctification, holiness, participation, co-crucifixion, and theosis, reciprocally tied together not only sheds a new light on the contemporary field of Pauline studies but also allows us to see Paul and the coherence of his theology in a more historically and theologically adequate perspective. Intentionally or unintentionally, Inhabiting the Cruciform God creates a bridge from exclusively New Testament Studies, to the role and influence of Paul’s writings on the development of patristic theology; or at least how early Christian authors read and understood Paul.
In my book, “The Beauty of the Unity and the Harmony of the Whole:” The Concept of Theosis in the Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (2009), I attempt to trace the emergence and development of the deification theme in Greek patristic