An alternative reading of the so-called Western doctrine of God is
the essence/energies distinction made famous by Gregory Palamas. It
posits that we cannot know God in his simple essence, but we can know
him by his energies (or operations). Hints of this doctrine are found
in the Cappadocians and Maximos (though I deny they are saying exactly
the same thing as Gregory). The doctrine has an initial appeal.
Admittedly in our prayer lives, we do not pray to “essence itself,” but
to the persons of the Trinity. It also appears that we do know God by
his actions towards us, and not by transcending to the essence. So this
means the distinction is correct, right? If this is the only
alternative to the Thomistic doctrine of absolute divine simplicity
(e.g., person = relation =essence; person = essence!), then how can we
avoid not assenting to it?
Some form of the doctrine might in fact be correct, but even when I
was gung-ho for anchoretism, a number of questions kept coming up.
- Is it true that the Thomistic model of divine simplicity is the only
choice for Western doctrines of God? I simply deny this to be the
case. I think it is disputed that even Augustine held to a form of
this.
- While it’s true that we know God by his actions toward us, can the
“energies” model really account for all biblical data? Even Orthodox
theologians note this difficulty. Vladimir Moss, in rebuttal to Fr
John Romanides writes, “Do the Scriptures speak of our having an
energetic relationship with God or a personal relationship with God?”
- It is true that God relates to us by our actions, but as Gunton notes (Act & Being),
when Scripture uses these concepts it does so around terms like
providence, Incarnation, and covenant. When the fathers use these terms
they usually mean the peri ton theon (things around the godhead) or the divine logoi (think eternal forms).
Technical critiques of the doctrine:
Orthodox philosopher David Bradshaw
writes, ““Somehow by energeia Gregory and Basil would appear to
understand both that which God is, and that which God performs. … Basil
and Gregory in their turn revise Plotinus by rejecting the distinction
of hypostasis between Intellect and the One. For them the relevant
distinction is rather that between God
as he exists within himself and is known only to himself, and God
as he manifests himself to others. The former is the divine
ousia,
the latter the divine energies. It is important to note that both are
God, but differently conceived: God as unknowable and as knowable, as
wholly beyond us and as within our reach.”
In other words, God’s energies are
ad extra, outside the Godhead. They relate to creation. This raises a troubling point, as
Olivianus has
noted, “if there were no creation would God’s nature be the same? On
the Eastern view, no. On said view, in order for God to have the nature
he does he must create. Thus creation is a necessity of nature.”
Remember, in some sense the “energies” are part of who God is--but they only relate to God's works ad extra. All
Christian traditions believe that God’s essence is stable and
unchanging. God would be God regardless of creation. However, God’s
energies only relate to creation (God’s manifesting himself to others).
So here we have a disjunction between God ad intra and God ad extra.
The only way out of his is to posit a necessary creation, which few
traditional theologians are willing to do.
Addendum: Vladimir Moss’s extended critique:
Moss is one of the outlaw theologians of the Orthodox Church. He is a
Western convert to a catacomb branch of the Russian Orthodox Church.
(When the Moscow Patriarchate surrendered to the Bolsheviks, a number of
Orthodox believers rightly resisted and went underground, forming
denominations–I know they hate that word–like ROCOR and ROCA. Most of
these denominations have since rejoined the MP. Moss’s has not).
Moss’s theological project is odd, but in many ways it is quite
helpful. He does not have rose-colored Tsarist-Holy Serbia glasses.
He honestly points out problems in current Orthodox theology,
historiography, and practice. His comments on topics like
substitutionary atonement, theosis, and original sin are very helpful,
surprisingly.
Fr John Romanides in some ways resurrected the theological project of
Gregory Palamas. In his works one will note a strong antipathy towards
anything Western: substitution, original sin, AUGUSTINE, etc. While
Romanides has a clear manner of writing, it appears that he often
overshoots his target. While he makes many good points, his method
precludes a number of valuable insights in Christian theology. Moss
realizes this and responds accordingly. In its starkest form, the
essence-energies distinction, most starkly represented by Romanides,
adopts the
Dionysian hyper-ousia
(God is beyond being) of which we cannot know, but he reveals himself
in his energies, which we can know. The following are
Moss’s glosses:
Romanides: “
The relationship between God and man is
not a personal relationship and it is also not a subject-object
relationship. So when we speak about a personal relationship between God
and man, we are making a mistake. That kind of relationship between God
and human beings does not exist…The relations between God and man are
not like the relations between fellow human beings. Why? Because we are
not on the same level or in the same business with God.”
Moss: But God came down to our level in the Incarnation (this is precisely the same point Gunton makes against Dionysius).
What
reason could Romanides have for denying that God is a Person(s) and
that our relationship with Him is personal? The present writer can only
speculate here, but the answer may lie in Romanides’ obsession with the
distinction between the Essence and the Energies of God, according to
which God is unknowable in His Essence, but knowable in His Essence. Now
this is a valid and very important distinction, but Romanides abuses it
as often as he uses it correctly. It would be an abuse, for example, to
say that since God can only be known through His Energies, our
relationship with Him can only be “energetic”, not personal. For Who
is known through His Energies? Is it not the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – that is, the Persons
of the Holy Trinity? So our relationship with God is both
“energetic” and
personal: we know the Persons of God through His Energies. For, as St.
Paul says, God has “shone in our hearts to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God [His Energies] in the face of Jesus Christ
[His Person]” (II Corinthians 4.6).
Romanides: “No similarity whatsoever exists between the uncreated
and the created, or between God and creation. This also means that no
analogy, correlation, or comparison can be made between them. This
implies that we cannot use created things as a means for knowing the
uncreated God or His energy.”
Moss: But this immediately raises the objection: if there is no
similarity whatsoever between God and His creation, why, when He created
man, did He create Him in His “
image and likeness”? And
again: is not this likeness between God and man precisely the basis
which makes possible the union between God and man, and man’s
deification?
Me: This touches on the
analogia entis, which most Protestants reject in its Romanist form. I had never realized Moss’s point before. I offer a hearty amen.
Addendum:
