Theosis East and West

It does not take very much study to realize that differences that exist between the Eastern and Western church. These differences encompass a vast array of different topics and different styles and different conceptions. In fact, these differences led to a split of the church in the 11^th century, which although efforts to resolve these have been attempted, to this day remain as barriers of conversation and unity. While some of these variances have to do with firm disagreements about church polity and are very difficult to resolve even after conversation, some of these differences are theological in nature, resulting from differing strands of development and are worthwhile to engage in order to understand how each tradition can inform and enhance each other. One of the most difficult concepts to translate to the Western church is the Eastern concept of deification. Not only is there an enormous amount of underlying thought behind this theological idea which must be dealt with, but there is a barrier even in the word itself, with Western ears tending to be wary of such high claims for humanity’s potential.

It is the goal of this brief paper to explore the concept of Theosis, hoping to understand the term in its Eastern context and then to explore how we can relate this to Western thought, and in fact seeking to understand the usefulness of the attempt. It is my assertion that the modern western church can gain a great deal by engaging this concept in our theological discussions, and in this engagement enhancing how as a church we can reach out to those within our postmodern context.

In order to understand how the Western church can be benefited by an understanding, and use of, the concept of Theosis we must first examine how the term is understood in the Eastern church, and by first doing this we can explore avenues of continuity and exploration within our own context. Considered as foundational to an understanding of Eastern thought as a whole, the idea of deification has very much been forgotten by the general Western Christianity. It can be said, however, that without a proper understanding of theosis one cannot begin to understand Eastern theology in general. Daniel Clendenin writes, “It is not too much to say that the divinization of humanity is the central theme, chief aim, basic purpose, or primary religious ideal of Orthodoxy.” [1] The establishment of this doctrine is rooted in the teachings of the Church Fathers, and by tracing the development show the beginnings of the different strands of theology in both East and West.

In the development of the Eastern Church we find Roman jurisprudence exercising much less influence than in the West, where Tertullian and Augustine focused much of their writing on legal terminology in the discussion of salvation and our relationship with God. Thus there is a great emphasis on the guilt that we have incurred due to our sin, and the subsequent remedies which must be accomplished in order to remit this guilt and restore us into right relationship with God. In the East, the emphasis is not so much on the guilt that we possess, but rather on the corruption brought on by our sin that leads us down the road to death. As we have been intended for immortality by God’s original creation, salvation provides for us a restoration and return to that road which leads to life. Essentially, this means that the emphasis in the West tends towards understanding salvation as being a change from guilt to innocence, while in the East salvation is understood as representing a change from corruptible to incorruptible. [2]

Understanding the emphasis of soteriology differently has led to different developments of thought in East and West, exacerbated by the split of the church in the 11^th century and subsequent lack of dialogue between the two halves. The West has developed the idea of justification, and sought to understand how we as sinners can be allowed to come before a righteous and holy God. The juridical categories are fairly absent in Eastern thought, with the emphasis not being our justification as much as our restoration into communion with our Creator. However, it must be said that these emphases are not in disagreement with each other, but rather are separate motifs, each supportable through Scripture and tradition. The distinctions lie in their seeming exclusive expressions in East and West.

It is important in seeking to understand a common ground between East and West in the discussion of the idea of theosis, to first explain what deification is not. The misunderstanding of the term itself, foreign to Western ears, can lead to an unwarranted disregard not through theological disagreement, but on account of unclear definitions. The typical misunderstanding comes from a supposed equality that is thought to be inferred. Although deification implies a union with God, there is a strong distinction still made between God and the human person. “Orthodoxy consistently rejects the idea that humans participate in the essence or nature of God.” [3] We do not become the person of God, or lose our human nature, but rather we are lifted up to participate with God to share with him eternally his life and being. In our union with the divine we are not fused with the Triune God, but are elevated to a whole communion with him, retaining that which is distinctively human, not being absorbed into a single entity, but in our individuality allowed to participate with God in who he is.

Understanding that in deification we become divine, but do not become God, is an important distinction. It is necessary to now work out what theosis does in fact seem to entail, though understanding with the Eastern theologians that this is indeed a mystery which is beyond thought or description. [4] Irenaeus stated that Jesus had, “through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” [5] Athanasius reiterated this when he said, “God became man so that men might become gods.” [6] This concept is derived primarily from 2 Peter 1:4 and Psalm 82:6. [7] The raising up of humanity to the divine is the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of individuals, communicating to each person the divine nature in an ever-increasing manner, with its fulfillment coming only in the age to come. [8] However, even thought the fulfillment will not occur until the coming of the Kingdom, the inauguration of this process is vital and indeed characteristic of true Christianity. [9]

The beginning of this process is conversion, the changing of our orientation away from death and towards life. Christ through his life, death, and resurrection made possible the restoration of humanity, and through grace has imparted this restoration to each person through the work and activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the world and especially in the Church. [10] However, having been given a free will, each person must come to the point where he or she seeks the cure to the corruption which God offers. At Pentecost, the Spirit was sent to humanity to indwell and impart to the believer grace and wholeness. As Vladimir Lossky states, “Through the coming of the Holy Spirit the Trinity dwells within us and deifies us; confers upon us the uncreated energies, Its glory, and Its deity which is the eternal light of which we must partake.” [11] If indeed we are filled with the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, fully divine, than that presence will by its very nature and energies lead us into a fuller life and stronger intimacy with the Divine. Through our conversion and acceptance of this indwelling, the grace of God is not an external activity, but rather one which manifests itself in our very being, pushing us ever upwards towards total communion and cooperation with God. [12] One way of describing this communion is the analogy of marriage, in which two persons, a man and a woman, are joined together in one flesh, maintaining their individuality, but sharing a single existence and holding all things in common. [13]

The key to our sharing in the divine nature, however, is our transition from mortality to immortality, from a corrupted being to incorruption. By our union with God, through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, we are allowed to triumph over death, which is the punishment for our transgressions. This immortality is what is meant by being deified. We no longer are mortal, but rather are raised to a level which is usually understood as belonging to divine beings. In addition, we are transformed from what can be called the image of God towards the “likeness of God.” [14] In our sharing of the divine through the activity of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we are increasingly directed towards a reflection of the Divine in all that we do. Humanity has been created in the image of God, so that all people retain that semblance, but through sin we have lost the likeness of God, with our decisions, desires, and activities distorted and corrupted as much as our physical natures. As we participate in the Divine, however, our thoughts, motives, desires, and activities become more and more in line with the Divine will, so that eventually all that we do is in line with God. [15]

Although it would be easy and proper to continue in the explanation of the Eastern concept of theosis, having established the basic outlines of this concept it would be useful to now turn to an examination of how this doctrine can find links to Western thought. It is certainly the case that the distinction between East and West is total or clearly drawn. There have been those in both regions who have in some ways reflected the thought of the other, and have expanded their analysis of the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit beyond the typical approaches. [16] In general, though, the case can be made of differing strands which seem to have created an insurmountable chasm between the two emphases. Upon analysis, however, there have been influential leaders in the Western church whose thought appears to point more toward the East than previously thought, and by working through their thought may show us a connection between East and West which is indeed strong, though hidden, and which can enhance our understanding of our own theological development. Both Martin Luther and John Wesley appear to give us a bridge between East and West that can aid us greatly in understanding the doctrine of deification, and help us to apply it to our own contexts.

Recently, a renewed re-examination of Lutheran thought has arisen which has appeared to find a vital connection between East and West. This modern research is coming for the most part out of Finland, at the University of Helsinki, and was begun initially by a growing dialogue between the Finnish Lutheran Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. [17] The work of Tuomo Mannermaa especially is influential in this developing and exciting study. Defining theosis as “the participation of the believer in the divine life of Christ” [18] Mannermaa examines Lutheran thought by contrasting what is truly Luther with later Lutheran developments. In the Formula of Concord, Mannermaa asserts that there was a separation of the justification of Christ and his indwelling, [19] with the idea of justification taking on purely a forensic declaration. In a study of Luther’s thought itself, however, Mannermaa finds no such distinction or separation finding rather that both the person and work of Christ are inseparable, with the forgiveness of sins resulting from the presence of Christ in the life of the believer. [20]

Lutheran thought from its source does not imply a differing work, or a passive reception of a divine pronouncement of innocence. Rather, “central in Luther’s theology is that in faith the human being really participates by faith in the person of Christ and in the divine life and the victory that is in it.” [21] Salvation is more than forgiveness to Luther, it is also a sharing of the divine life, in all of its fullness, between God and man. By understanding Christ as both God’s favor and his gift, Mannermaa finds an affinity between this reformer and classic Eastern thought. [22] The favor points towards the forgiveness of God and his removing of his deserved wrath, but the idea of gift comes in that God does more than simply forgive, he also offers himself to the believer through the person and work of Christ. This gift of God allows the believer to hold within herself a treasure which makes the Christian “greater than the entire world”. [23] This is not a passive presence either, but rather a presence which allows us to partake in the divine nature and participate in the essence of God. [24]

By sharing it the presence of Christ, the believer begins to take on the properties of God, the characteristics which define what God does, [25] in an ever increasing manner so that a Christian will exhibit the same qualities of “righteousness, wisdom, power, holiness, joy, peace, eternal life – and especially love.” [26] In the development of this idea Luther even reflects the basic affirmations of the Orthodox understanding of theosis when he states, “Just as the word of God became flesh, so its is certainly also necessary that the flesh may become word. In other words: God becomes man so that man may become God.” [27] Christ is not simply an object of faith for Luther, but is the source, strength, and result of faith which is really present in the life of the believer enabling life in it fullest form.

Clearly, upon a fuller examination of Luther we find a connection between classical Protestant thought and classical Orthodox thought which was much stronger than previously thought. Luther writes of an inseparable bond between our salvation and our being indwelled with Christ. With this comes a similar point of beginning for Luther and the Eastern church. Both strongly emphasize the great need for a person to abandon efforts to raise himself and to be emptied first before he can be filled. A human can only participate with the Divine by understanding that one’s own efforts are meaningless for salvation and restoration. This emphasis on salvation by grace alone does not mean, however, that humans are totally passive, but rather through our passivity we gain the ability to participate, so that we are called to be active, but only active through the activity of God within us. [28] This is a concept which the Eastern church would most wholeheartedly agree. [29]

A later reformer also seems to reflect a great deal of Eastern thought, and may in fact provide an even clearer connection between the Eastern Church and the Western, especially the specifically American Church. John Wesley was an ordained minister in the Church of England who realized that the Christianity which he saw represented in the Church did not match up with his own reading of the Scriptures and early Church writers. His influence and leadership began the Methodist movement which greatly influenced Britain, and even more so the burgeoning American colonies, and later States. His understanding of the activity of God in the life of the believer as being more than salvation led to his development of his understanding of the role of sanctification in the life of the believer and eventually to his development of the idea of Christian perfection. This thinking formed the basis for the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800s and a great many revivals since that time. Like Luther, however, we find that his followers adapted his thinking in a way which distorts his message and forces us to return to the original for clarification.

Interestingly a study of Wesley’s copious writings reveals that his thinking and arguments were very heavily based in his mastery of Patristic writings. He especially relied on a writer named Macarius the Egyptian who wrote around the late 4^th century, and who modern scholarship link extremely closely with Gregory of Nyssa. [30] Thus, Wesley’s thought and foundations were vitally influenced by one of the greatest of all Eastern thinkers. Understanding this leads a reader to a newfound insight into Wesley’s teaching of sanctification, and creates a closer link than imagined or developed between his thought, so influential in American Christianity, and Eastern conceptions of theosis.

John Wesley defines his concept of Christian perfection as “the loving God with all our hear, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul and that all the thoughts, words and actions are governed by pure love.” [31] Vladimir Lossky in his treatment on the way of union states that, “love.. is not simply a movement of the soul but is also an uncreated gift—a divine energy—which continually inflames the soul and unties it to God by the power of the Holy Spirit.” [32] Because of his own context, and the reactions which he had to respond to, much of Wesley’s thought is focused on the outward activities of what such a union entails. This focus has led to the Holiness emphasis on sinless living and ethical rigorism. In Wesley, however, he reflects the absolute work of grace which enables one to grow towards Christ which is seen in Orthodox thought. [33]

Although the later Methodist thought focused on the sinlessness, Wesley himself saw this as more of a natural result than a focus. As he stated, “the truth is, in a state of perfection every desire is in subjection to the obedience of Christ. The will is entirely subject to the will of God and the affections wholly fixed upon him. Now what motive can remain sufficient to induce such a person to a transgression of the law?” [34] It is clear that throughout Wesley’s thinking he has an understanding which in many ways reflects more Eastern thought than Western, though adapted in his context to respond to Western questions. Both Wesley and Orthodox thought place a high regard on both grace and human freedom in responding to this grace. Both see the activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer as being more than a passive reception, but rather there is a necessary full participation by the believer in what is going on, so that the believer enabled by the Spirit leads a life which ever-increasingly reflects the Divine presence, eventually reaching a point of total communion. And both have an expectation of the inauguration and development of this process in this life, but acknowledge that it will only be in the age to come that the fullness of this union can be achieved.

The point of departure can be seen not in the theological foundations of this union but in the distinctive manner in which this is worked out in the life of the believer. For the Orthodox church there is a great emphasis on the mystical life, with a great weight placed upon the withdrawal from society, and the development of an intimate relationship with God through such means as hesychastic prayer and other mystical endeavors which will provide the believer with evidence of communion through the vision of divine light. [35] Thus in Orthodox thinking there is a great emphasis on the monastery and other such individual pursuits in the midst of the community. In Wesley, however, his practicality led him to develop a communal focus of small groups, and a great emphasis on social causes and visible manifestations of love for one’s neighbor. In this way, one could even say that Eastern thinkers could benefit from a reading of Wesley’s development of their tradition.

An initial exposure to the concept of theosis can be somewhat daunting to a Western believer, who may be turned away by the language of being deified. Yet in seeking out a fuller meaning of this concept we find not only a great richness but also that the Western church has in fact had leaders who had this thinking as part of their own theology. Generally, however, the forensic understanding of salvation has dominated, leading the Western Church to emphasize sin and guilt. This concept which is certainly Biblical has in its overemphasis tended to be less relevant in the modern culture where an awareness of sin, guilt, and status before a lord are increasingly not present. In addition, a focus justification separated from the indwelling of Christ, has in many ways caused an acceptable nominality to rise within the Church, with believers not expected to nor taught how to go past their salvation experience. Thus, what is for the Eastern Church, and as seen in Luther and Wesley, as being the very beginning of the Christian life, has become the totality of the Christian life, with churches evangelizing but not developing those to whom it reaches out. A recovery of the concept of theosis in our churches, in essence a recovery of the original teachings of our Protestant leaders, would be enormously beneficial in revitalizing our churches, and in doing so continuing to spread the truth and love of Christ throughout the world. For we have been saved by the favor of God, we also have been gifted with the presence of Christ in our lives, and through the work of the Holy Spirit we can participate in the fullness of God, partaking of all of his goodness, and living a life of total love and total union with God.

[1] Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994), 121.

[2] Clendenin, 132ff.

[3] Clendenin, 130.

[4] See Clendenin, 129ff.

[5] Against Heresies V. preface.

[6] Quoted in Tuomo Mannermaa, “Justification and Theosis in Lutheran-Orthodox Perspective”, Union With Christ, Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 26.

[7] Quoted by Jesus in John 10:34-35. See Clendenin 125ff. for a fuller description of the Biblical texts used as a foundation.

[8] Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), 196.

[9] Clendenin, 135.

[10] See Lossky, 166ff.

[11] Lossky, 171.

[12] See Lossky, 173.

[13] Clendenin, 131ff.

[14] Clendenin, 133ff.

[15] See Lossky, 207ff.

[16] See Clendenin, 124ff. for a description of Westerners approaching Eastern thought, and Easterners approaching Western.

[17] See Tuomo Mannermaa, “Why is Luther So Fascinating, Modern Finnish Luther Research,” Union with Christ, 1ff. and John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias eds., preface and introduction, Salvation in Christ: a Lutheran—Orthodox dialogue (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1992), 7ff.

[18] Mannermaa, 26.

[19] Mannermaa, 27.

[20] Mannermaa, 28.

[21] Mannermaa, 32.

[22] Mannermaa, 33.

[23] Martin Luther, Letter on Galatians, 1535, quoted in Mannermaa, 33.

[24] Mannermaa, 34.

[25] See Lossky, 67ff. for an Orthodox understanding of the energies of God as different from the essence of God, which Luther seems to also imply

[26] Mannermaa, 35.

[27] Martin Luther, quoted in Mannermaa, 35.

[28] Mannermaa, 39ff.

[29] See Lossky, 197ff.

[30] See John Outler ed., introduction, John Wesley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 9 n.26

[31] John Wesley, “Thoughts on Christian Perfection,” John Wesley,284.

[32] Lossky, 212.

[33] See John Wesley, “The Fullness of Faith,” John Wesley, 286

[34] Wesley, “Fullness of Faith”, 286.

[35] See Georgios I. Mantazaridis, The Deification of Man, (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1984), 87ff.