Review of Tollefsen: "Activity and participation in late antique and early Christian thought"

[Teofrastus]

In his book Activity and participation in late antique and early Christian thought (2012) Torstein Theodor Tollefsen tries to make sense of some basic ideas of Eastern Christian thinking, and he almost succeeds. He makes an excellent scholarly analysis of the many strange concepts, such as logoi and divine energeia. Importantly, he shows that, in the Cappadocian Fathers, the ultimate ontological category of God's being is not really 'the person', as in Meyendorff and Zizioulas (pp. 212-13). I find Maximus Confessor especially inspiring. I like his concept that each individual has his own logos, a personal essential activity and purpose whose center is the Logos, i.e., the Christ.

But I can't get my head around Eastern apophasis. After all, if God is beyond understanding, then we cannot know whether or not he can be known. From the apophatic standpoint follows that we cannot know that we cannot know God. So, in my view, the apophaticists are contradicting themselves. I am also skeptical about Eastern deification: through contemplative purification and with the aid of the Holy Spirit the mind can separate from all things and attain impassibility and detachment. In this process we are "made gods". Isn't this the very opposite of the Christian ideal of humility? And why would we want to become impassible and detached gods in the first place? In my view, to come closer to God means to adapt to life in one's own special way. It does not mean to sail away on a cloud of bliss. Anyway, this book gives a good insight into the mystical yet intellectually sophisticated thought-world of Byzantine and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is worth five stars.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Apophatic and Cataphatic theology have to go hand in hand. We understand God by what he reveals to us and we have to realize that we are very limited as to that understanding. So sometimes it might be better to say we don't know.

One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, ‘You have not understood it.’ Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, ‘How would you explain this saying?’ And he replied, ‘I do not know.’ Then Abba Anthony said, ‘Indeed Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: “I do said, not know.”‘​

​

As for theosis, why do you say "impassible and detached", when we are told that God is Love
1 John 4:7-8 7 - Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

We're not detached and we need to be humble. In the conversation recorded by Motovilov and St. Seraphim of Sarov:

"Nevertheless," I replied, "I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself His true manifestation in me?"​

Father Seraphim replied: "I have already told you, your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize His presence in us. So what do you want, my son?"​

"I want to understand it well," I said.​

Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: "We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don't you look at me?"​

I replied: "I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain."​

Father Seraphim said: "Don't be alarmed, your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am."​

 

[Teofrastus]

As for theosis, why do you say "impassible and detached", when we are told that God is Love...

Because in St Maximus' ascetical philosophy the development of virtues culminates in detachment as the condition of love for God. St Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Palamas reasoned similarly. Divine love requires detachment, as it separates the soul and its powers from attachment to sensible things that distract its spiritual concentration (p. 203). As a moral consequence of the fall, humanity lost the grace of impassibility.

It is interesting that they see impassibility and detachment as preconditions for love. It reminds me of the quandary in Western theology around Anders Nygren's book Eros and Agape. Eastern Church Fathers' concept of love would correspond to Nygren's notion of agape.

I have no problem with detachment. It is arguably the central function of religion, i.e., to encourage transcendence of the worldly, or else worldly corruption would defeat us. But should we really take it to the extremes and become completely detached, like the angels? To acquire true human nature is to achieve a relative degree of transcendence through the Christian faith, or else we will remain human animals. But are we really meant to go further than this? Angels need only bother about the heavenly realm, but human beings must adapt to both the worldly and the heavenly, and this is what makes us human. I am skeptical about overly transcendental religious ideals.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Because in St Maximus' ascetical philosophy the development of virtues culminates in detachment as the condition of love for God. St Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Palamas reasoned similarly. Divine love requires detachment, as it separates the soul and its powers from attachment to sensible things that distract its spiritual concentration (p. 203). As a moral consequence of the fall, humanity lost the grace of impassibility.

It is interesting that they see impassibility and detachment as preconditions for love. It reminds me of the quandary in Western theology around Anders Nygren's book Eros and Agape. Eastern Church Fathers' concept of love would correspond to Nygren's notion of agape.

I have no problem with detachment. It is arguably the central function of religion, i.e., to encourage transcendence of the worldly, or else worldly corruption would defeat us. But should we really take it to the extremes and become completely detached, like the angels? To acquire true human nature is to achieve a relative degree of transcendence through the Christian faith, or else we will remain human animals. But are we really meant to go further than this? Angels need only bother about the heavenly realm, but human beings must adapt to both the worldly and the heavenly, and this is what makes us human. I am skeptical about overly transcendental religious ideals.

Morning, you're way beyond my basic comprehension and I only had one year at seminary. You might want to post your questions on theosis in The Ancient Way, aka TAW, section for Eastern Orthodox. There are a number of people in there who don't post outside of the EO forums including an OCA priest. There is a section called St. Basil's Hall which is probably the most appropriate area but here is a link to the general section.

The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox

Greek, Russian, Antiochian

www.christianforums.com

 

[zippy2006]

I have no problem with detachment. It is arguably the central function of religion, i.e., to encourage transcendence of the worldly, or else worldly corruption would defeat us. But should we really take it to the extremes and become completely detached, like the angels? To acquire true human nature is to achieve a relative degree of transcendence through the Christian faith, or else we will remain human animals. But are we really meant to go further than this? Angels need only bother about the heavenly realm, but human beings must adapt to both the worldly and the heavenly, and this is what makes us human. I am skeptical about overly transcendental religious ideals.

I think you need to try to give a clear definition of what you mean by 'detachment'.

 

[Teofrastus]

I think you need to try to give a clear definition of what you mean by 'detachment'.

It's a well-known term in Christian mysticism and Neoplatonism, which has its roots in Pseudo-Dionysius. Detachment is a recurring theme in the medieval mystics Meister Eckhart and Saint John of the Cross. Eckhart says that "only pure detachment surpasses all things, for all virtues have some regard to creatures, but detachment is free of all creatures" (On detachment). That's why it is regarded as the highest virtue among mystics, because it means disengagement with all created things. Thus, the mystic leaves room for the immediate presence of God within the soul. Eckhart explains that the illusion of self is the direct result of our human attachments. To replace our worldly attachments with the sole desire to be one with God means to pursue a life of separation from the self (cf. On Detachment: Medieval Mysticism to Modern Phenomenology by Brian P. McNeil).

However, the idea that we can achieve union with God by the elimination of our ego is highly implausible from the standpoint of modern psychology and cognitive science.

 

[zippy2006]

It's a well-known term in Christian mysticism and Neoplatonism, which has its roots in Pseudo-Dionysius. Detachment is a recurring theme in the medieval mystics Meister Eckhart and Saint John of the Cross. Eckhart says that "only pure detachment surpasses all things, for all virtues have some regard to creatures, but detachment is free of all creatures" (On detachment).

It is a common term, but the usage from Pseudo-Dionysius to Eckhart differs considerably from the Early Eastern Fathers, who predated Ps. Dionysius. Given that your thread is about Early Christian thought, I wouldn't want to pull our definition of 'detachment' from the Medieval and Modern periods.

That's why it is regarded as the highest virtue among mystics, because it means disengagement with all created things. Thus, the mystic leaves room for the immediate presence of God within the soul. Eckhart explains that the illusion of self is the direct result of our human attachments. To replace our worldly attachments with the sole desire to be one with God means to pursue a life of separation from the self (cf. On Detachment: Medieval Mysticism to Modern Phenomenology by Brian P. McNeil).

However, the idea that we can achieve union with God by the elimination of our ego is highly implausible from the standpoint of modern psychology and cognitive science.

I don't actually agree that Eckhart thinks "the illusion of self is the direct result of our human attachments." Eckhart has been caught up in a great deal of Buddhist anthropology, and this move requires a highly selective reading of his texts. That said, it is true that for Eckhart detachment means a transcending of the senses and the material world.

As I recall, the Early Fathers talk more about dispassion than detachment, although it would be easy to conflate the two ideas. The idea here is freedom from the passions, namely the evil passions, the epitome of which are the "eight evil thoughts." Generally speaking, this is the idea that we should not be possessed by and pushed around by passions like lust, gluttony, anger, etc. (Cf. Orthodox Psychotherapy, by Metropolitan Hierotheos).

 

[Teofrastus]

It is a common term, but the usage from Pseudo-Dionysius to Eckhart differs considerably from the Early Eastern Fathers [...]

Tollefsen says:

In Palamas, like in Maximus, the virtue of detachment separates the soul and its powers from attachment to sensible things that distract its spiritual concentration. (p. 203)​

It sounds very similar to the Catholic medieval mystics. This whole idea comes from the Eastern Fathers. Athanasius (d. 373) says:

For when the human mind is not engaged with bodily things and has no bodily desires mingled with itself from outside but is completely above that and engaged with itself, as it was created from the beginning, then it transcends what is sensible and all human things and it rises to sublime heights, and seeing the Word, it sees also in him the Father of the Word. (Against the Greeks 2)​

This is arguably the same as Eckhart's mysticism.

 

[zippy2006]

Tollefsen says:

In Palamas, like in Maximus, the virtue of detachment separates the soul and its powers from attachment to sensible things that distract its spiritual concentration. (p. 203)​

Well, talk about "attachment to sensible things" is a long way from becoming the "impassible and detached gods" of your OP!

Are you aware that Palamas is even later than Eckhart?

It sounds very similar to the Catholic medieval mystics. This whole idea comes from the Eastern Fathers. Athanasius (d. 373) says:

For when the human mind is not engaged with bodily things and has no bodily desires mingled with itself from outside but is completely above that and engaged with itself, as it was created from the beginning, then it transcends what is sensible and all human things and it rises to sublime heights, and seeing the Word, it sees also in him the Father of the Word. (Against the Greeks 2)​

I can't find it. What section of part 2 are you getting this from?

In my reading of the early Eastern tradition I do not find a call to "become impassible and detached gods." Is this Tollefson's claim or yours?

There is an early monastic emphasis on dispassion and detachment, but I don't think it implies what you say it does.

 

[Teofrastus]

Well, talk about "attachment to sensible things" is a long way from becoming the "impassible and detached gods" of your OP!

Are you aware that Palamas is even later than Eckhart?


I can't find it. What section of part 2 are you getting this from?

In my reading of the early Eastern tradition I do not find a call to "become impassible and detached gods." Is this Tollefson's claim or yours?

There is an early monastic emphasis on dispassion and detachment, but I don't think it implies what you say it does.

Of course, Palamas is 14th century. This proves my point. Mystical theology has been the same all the time. I got that citation from Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius, p. 36. The following is Thomson, Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (1971):

For when men's mind has no intercourse with the body, and has nothing of the latter's desires mingled with it from outside but is entirely superior to them, being self-sufficient as it was created in the beginning, then it transcends the senses and all human things and it rises high above the world, and beholding the Word sees in him also the Father of the Word.​

Also Athanasius thinks that we would be immortal gods if we could only clear away our natural corruption:

For man is by nature mortal in that he was created from nothing. But because of his likeness to him who exists, if he had kept this through contemplating God, he would have blunted his natural corruption and would have remained incorruptible, as the book of Wisdom says: 'The keeping of the law is the assurance of incorruptibility.' But being incorruptible he would thenceforth have lived as God, as also somewhere the Divine Scripture declares, saying: 'I said that you are gods and all sons of the Highest: but you die like men and fall as one of the princes.' (Thomson, De Incarnatione, p. 145)​

 

[zippy2006]

Of course, Palamas is 14th century. This proves my point. Mystical theology has been the same all the time.

Eh, citing two tiny snippets from Medieval authors and an unlocatable snippet from Athanasius you found in secondary literature does not "prove your point." As someone who has actually read Eckhart and Palamas at length, I do not find such an approach plausible. Like I said, provide the references to Athanasius so we can actually look at them in a primary text, preferably one that is available online.

 

[Teofrastus]

Eh, citing two tiny snippets from Medieval authors and an unlocatable snippet from Athanasius you found in secondary literature does not "prove your point." As someone who has actually read Eckhart and Palamas at length, I do not find such an approach plausible. Like I said, provide the references to Athanasius so we can actually look at them in a primary text, preferably one that is available online.

But I gave the reference, in Thomson: Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (1971). I also cited Thomson's slightly different translation of the excerpt. I could also point you to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

For when the mind of men does not hold converse with bodies, nor has mingled with it from without anything of their lust, but is wholly above them, dwelling with itself as it was made to begin with, then, transcending the things of sense and all things human, it is raised up on high; and seeing the Word, it sees in Him also the Father of the Word, taking pleasure in contemplating Him, and gaining renewal by its desire toward Him; 4. exactly as the first of men created, the one who was named Adam in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures as having at the beginning had his mind to God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by shame, and as associating with the holy ones in that contemplation of things perceived by the mind which he enjoyed in the place where he was — the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden. So purity of soul is sufficient of itself to reflect God, as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God". (Athanasius: Against the Heathen)​

​

And here is the excerpt from De Incarnatione:

For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as he is made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that is (and if he still preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge) he would stay his natural corruption, and remain incorrupt; as Wisdom 6:18 says: "The taking heed to His laws is the assurance of immortality"; but being incorrupt, he would live henceforth as God, to which I suppose the divine Scripture refers, when it says: "I have said you are gods, and you are all sons of the most Highest; but you die like men, and fall as one of the princes". (Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word)​

 

[zippy2006]

I could also point you to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

For when the mind of men does not hold converse with bodies, nor has mingled with it from without anything of their lust, but is wholly above them, dwelling with itself as it was made to begin with, then, transcending the things of sense and all things human, it is raised up on high; and seeing the Word, it sees in Him also the Father of the Word, taking pleasure in contemplating Him, and gaining renewal by its desire toward Him; 4. exactly as the first of men created, the one who was named Adam in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures as having at the beginning had his mind to God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by shame, and as associating with the holy ones in that contemplation of things perceived by the mind which he enjoyed in the place where he was — the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden. So purity of soul is sufficient of itself to reflect God, as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God". (Athanasius: Against the Heathen)​

Okay, thank you. Now we have a text, with context available, that we can look at.

Now your claim is that this text represents a desire for the "elimination of our ego," which you believe is also found in later Medieval spiritual writers. Is that correct, or is there some other criticism you are making of the text? In your OP your criticism was that Eastern thought beckons us to "become impassible and detached gods." Perhaps you also find such an idea in Athanasius?

 

[Teofrastus]

At

Okay, thank you. Now we have a text, with context available, that we can look at.

Now your claim is that this text represents a desire for the "elimination of our ego," which you believe is also found in later Medieval spiritual writers. Is that correct, or is there some other criticism you are making of the text? In your OP your criticism was that Eastern thought beckons us to "become impassible and detached gods." Perhaps you also find such an idea in Athanasius?

Constantine Tsirpanlis says that "[t]he teaching of deification constitutes the primary and central idea of the whole theology of St. Athanasius" (Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology, p. 34). This was taken to its fulfilment in Palamas, who taught hesychasm. It means that the monk, through asceticism and detachment from earthly cares, in contemplation experiences a mystical light; which is none other than the uncreated light of God. In this way he is most intimately united with God.

This led to the Hesychast controversy in the Byzantine empire. This is no wonder, considering that hesychasm is not much different than Neoplatonic contemplation. It is today called quietism, which has received much critique in the modern era. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Quietism is thus generally speaking a sort of false or exaggerated mysticism, which under the guise of the loftiest spirituality contains erroneous notions which, if consistently followed, would prove fatal to morality. It is fostered by Pantheism and similar theories, and it involves peculiar notions concerning the Divine cooperation in human acts. (Quietism)​

Like I said, detachment is fine, as long as you don't go too far.

 

[zippy2006]

At

Constantine Tsirpanlis says that "[t]he teaching of deification constitutes the primary and central idea of the whole theology of St. Athanasius" (Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology, p. 34). This was taken to its fulfilment in Palamas, who taught hesychasm. It means that the monk, through asceticism and detachment from earthly cares, in contemplation experiences a mystical light; which is none other than the uncreated light of God. In this way he is most intimately united with God.

This led to the Hesychast controversy in the Byzantine empire. This is no wonder, considering that hesychasm is not much different than Neoplatonic contemplation. It is today called quietism, which has received much critique in the modern era. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Quietism is thus generally speaking a sort of false or exaggerated mysticism, which under the guise of the loftiest spirituality contains erroneous notions which, if consistently followed, would prove fatal to morality. It is fostered by Pantheism and similar theories, and it involves peculiar notions concerning the Divine cooperation in human acts. (Quietism)​

Like I said, detachment is fine, as long as you don't go too far.

It is true that many Lutherans are allergic to theosis. We have an old thread on the topic: Is Deification compatible with Lutheranism?

 

[Teofrastus]

It is true that many Lutherans are allergic to theosis. We have an old thread on the topic: Is Deification compatible with Lutheranism?

In point of fact, Luther repeatedly uses the ideas of deification and participation in God in his writings. However, deification means something different than in the Orthodox tradition. It depends on a confident clinging to the invisible Christ present in faith. Participation in Christ means that that we acquire a new being of man extra se or in Christum. Thus, our new being is external in Christ. It does not occur through a gradual process but is renewed daily, by a daily clinging onto Christ in faith. It depends on our self-awareness as sinners trusting in Christ's mercy. Luther says: "[T]o make progress is nothing else than always to begin".

The divine nature is ours by proxy in Christ. But it remains concealed in this life under our daily self-recognition as sinner. The sinner knows himself justified only with regard to Christ.

In his second Lectures on the Psalms, Luther says that Christ became man in order to reduce haughty gods to real human beings, i.e. to sinners. It is logical, considering that only the self-aware sinner can become divinized in Christ (cf. Flogaus, R., 'Justification or Deification? Luther's Soteriology in an Ecumenical Perspective' in Theological Anthropology, 500 Years after Martin Luther, 2021).

 

[zippy2006]

In point of fact, Luther repeatedly uses the ideas of deification and participation in God in his writings. However, deification means something different than in the Orthodox tradition. It depends on a confident clinging to the invisible Christ present in faith. Participation in Christ means that that we acquire a new being of man extra se or in Christum. Thus, our new being is external in Christ. It does not occur through a gradual process but is renewed daily, by a daily clinging onto Christ in faith. It depends on our self-awareness as sinners trusting in Christ's mercy. Luther says: "[T]o make progress is nothing else than always to begin".

The divine nature is ours by proxy in Christ. But it remains concealed in this life under our daily self-recognition as sinner. The sinner knows himself justified only with regard to Christ.

In his second Lectures on the Psalms, Luther says that Christ became man in order to reduce haughty gods to real human beings, i.e. to sinners. It is logical, considering that only the self-aware sinner can become divinized in Christ (cf. Flogaus, R., 'Justification or Deification? Luther's Soteriology in an Ecumenical Perspective' in Theological Anthropology, 500 Years after Martin Luther, 2021).

I would suggest posting in the thread I linked to, or else starting a blog.

 

[fhansen]

Isn't this the very opposite of the Christian ideal of humility? And why would we want to become impassible and detached gods in the first place? In my view, to come closer to God means to adapt to life in one's own special way. It does not mean to sail away on a cloud of bliss. Anyway, this book gives a good insight into the mystical yet intellectually sophisticated thought-world of Byzantine and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is worth five stars.

To want what God wants for us, for His will to be done, is not pride but humility. And He wants and expects something great for and from man-that's the nature of love, incidentally. Adam wanted to be "like God", determining his own way for himself, and this is not in line with truth, reality, or the created order of things. The Catholic Church puts it this way, regarding Adam's act of disobedience:

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned Him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

Also in Catholic teaching, man cannot know God in His essence accept by grace; the "beatific vision" or immediate vision of God- to "see" God- being the ultimate gift to man-and source of pure, uncompromised happiness/exaltation, in the next life. Man can never comprehend God, or have total knowledge of Him IOW. For that he'd have to be God and that can never occur for a created being of course. But we can know Him; we can experience Him, as a supernatural gift and not by our natural human capabilities. And some have been given "glimpses" of this vision in the here and now down through the centuries and have attested to this for our better understanding and belief.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luther is operating from the same Neo-Platonic understandig of the Christian faith as participation, he just recontextualizes and simplifies it, similar to what Shinran did with Mahayana Buddhism in Japan, centuries earlier.

Of course, what Lutheran scholastics did with that religion makes the mysticism obscured.

 

[Teofrastus]

Luther is operating from the same Neo-Platonic understandig of the Christian faith as participation, he just recontextualizes and simplifies it, similar to what Shinran did with Mahayana Buddhism in Japan, centuries earlier.

Of course, what Lutheran scholastics did with that religion makes the mysticism obscured.

Christianity is always in some sense Platonic. The difference lies in the understanding of participation. In Luther, there is no progress towards deification as if the Christian is already partially righteous, thanks to the restorative action of Christ, so that there are only residual sins left in him. This would be a Neoplatonic understanding, consonant with Orthodox and Catholic theology. Luther rejects this. Rather, participation in Christ means to cling to the invisible Christ present in faith. The new state of the Christian depends on an extraneous existence (extra nos), which means that the God relation remains the center point.

Flogaus says that "[t]his concept of deification as found in Luther is clearly different from the Orthodox understanding of deification and even more from the Hesychast concept of theosis through participation in the uncreated divine light" (p. 204). That's why Luther says that the Christian is simultaneously saint and sinner. He has already achieved sainthood in Christ, although this is a reality that remains concealed under the cross.

Other theologians never really gave up Neoplatonism and gnosis, and this is true also of certain Lutheran theologians. Wolfhart Pannenberg has a "theology of completion" (rather than a traditional "theology of restoration"), which means that creation was broken already from the start, as in Gnosticism. Redemption consists in the completion of a deficient creation in the eschaton, in which the conditions of finitude are overcome and we are lifted above the natural world and its temporality. Thus, mankind is summoned to be gods. As I see it, this is as far from Luther's theology that you can get.