last week in fusion we showed a clip from the robert duvall movie, "the apostle", in which 5 pentecostal preachers take turns team-preaching. showing this clip was memorable for several reasons:
1. their style of preaching was very charismatic - there was lots of yelling and screaming, specific invocation of the third person of the trinity [aka the holy spirit], and it took place in a tent revival setting
2. we showed that clip at westwinds, an "emerging" church, which is very UNlike a tent revival
3. though westwinds is not a classically pentecostal church, it began as one and retains many constituents who come from that background [myself included]
4. we showed the clip during a 4 week series on the book of jude, wherein we looked specifically at the concept of "false teachers"
now, our decision to show this clip left people wondering:
a. is westwinds making a connection between "false teachers" in the book of jude and pentecostal preachers?
and...
b. if so, what am i supposed to do about it?
well, in response to these questions i think it's helpful to have a brief discussion about jude. first off, jude is a book warning us against false teachers - but the "false teachers" in jude are people who are orienting christians away from the person and work of jesus christ. they are gnostics [who make a false division between the world of the spiritual world and the material world, a division which the Incarnation specifically de-bunks], the docetists [who believe that jesus was simply an illusion and that - since the Incarnation never happened - our morality is irrelevant], and the marcionists [who, though they weren't identified with the heretic marcion until much later in history, were staunch legalists who discredited the entire old testament via their harsh anti-semitism].
the preachers in "the apostle", on the other hand, did not orient people away from the person and work of jesus christ. in fact [suspending the differences in personhood between the holy spirit and jesus for the time being], their whole performance was explicitly christian.
if we were to criticize these preachers, we would almost undoubtedly criticize them for the manner in which they presented their message; but, particularly at westwinds, this is an extreme example of hypocrisy given that we are regularly accused of being heretical by virtue of our methodology.
but we all know that methodology is not a matter of orthodoxy
it is a matter of style
and, providing our methodology doesn't lead us into errant theology or misdirect our focus away from christ
we ought to have plenty of lee-way for our church services to look as dissimilar as we want.
and as for the difference in personhood between the holy spirit and jesus, scripture tells us that the spirit leads us to christ [john 14.26, 15.26, 16.7-10 plus many, many others]; so, even though the preachers in "the apostle" were speaking specifically about the holy spirit [rather than specifically about jesus] a biblically credible understanding of the trinity means those two emphases are tantamount to the same thing.
so,
if you are looking for a good movie
with a very strange scene in it
featuring some backwater-yet-enthusiastic-and-god-honoring preachers
then
i highly recommend
"the apostle"
starring robert duvall.
p.s. b.y.o tambourine for best results.
cheers!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
do what?
as a big fan of abstract theologies and innovative ecclesiology, i realize that i have a personal tendency towards things that make no sense whatsoever to normal people.
i just like weird stuff
i like obscure bible passages and ancient near eastern creation myths
i like angelology and alternate atonement theories
i even like watching stupid movies like ghost rider [which, btw, is stupid x 2 ]
but i also find myself driven to try and refine christian spirituality to its most true version
i want to believe and do and experience what jesus christ intended for me to believe and do and experience
as part of this desire, i've begun to think that those of us who follow jesus need to engage in spiritual practices more than we need to engage in theology
even though i love theology
and even though i recognize there is always a danger of works-based righteousness creeping into our understanding of salvation [which, interestingly enough, we always seem more scared of than useless/listless faith that doesn't compel us to act in any way different than how we're feeling from moment to moment].
so - in response to the ever-ontologically probing question "what should we be doing?"
here is the beginnings of my response
which, of course, i base on my understanding of jesus' life as presented in the gospels
#1. get together.
call it fellowship, mentoring, discipleship, or community - i think we ought to just get together with other people and be exposed to the manifestations of the divine life that are reflected in them and in-between us all. we ought to learn from one another, love one another, and learn to be present with one another even when we don't want to or feel like we don't need to.
#2. engage scripture.
yup - we need to read the bible [brilliant, i know]. these days it's common to talk about differing learning styles and the difficulty for some people to find meaning by reading the words of the biblical text; but, to be honest, if we're serious about christ we should be serious about the primary sources that tell us about him. so, if you don't find anything meaningful out of reading the bible - then buy the cd, or enter into a discussion group, or just read one verse per week over and over again and think about it ad naseum. you just can't be a jesus-lover if you're negligent about engaging scripture.
#3. pray.
again, brilliant [i know - lay off]. your prayers don't have to be intelligent, thoughtful, or even coherent in order to "count." just pray. be honest to god - tell him how you're feeling. ask for guidance and wisdom. pray for strength. shutting up is a pretty good idea, too - in an effort to hear his potential responses, though [if you're like me], shutting up is usually quickly followed by shutting my eyes and falling asleep in a puddle of my own apathy/drool.
#4. help the world.
care about the planet. care about injustice. care about people. care about culture/society. care about government...and then do something - do anything to actually try and make a difference. jesus wasn't divorced from the material reality of his day - he lived in it. he engaged pharisees and zealots, romans and ex-pats, politicians and slaves; he engaged politics and culture, societal norms and religious traditions, and he challenged injustice and evil in every way. we should too.
#5. give money.
generosity is an outward manifestation of gratitude to god. give money to people, to charities, to churches, and to npo's all over the planet.
#6. laugh.
i think we're all a little tired of the dour-religious stereotype. jesus partied, played with kids, had close friends, drank good [and alternately, sometimes cheap] wine, and spent most of the gospels eating. that sounds fun [there's obviously more to the story than "fun", but i think we get the confrontational jesus and the benign jesus much more than we get the loving-life-as-gods-gift-lets-enjoy-one-another jesus].
#7. dream up new ideas.
jesus revolutionized commerce, society, religion, and politics in the minds of his followers. isn't there a part of our followership that ought to do the same?
#8. make things.
scripture teaches us we are co-creators with god, image-bearers of the divine reflecting his nature in our activities. his first act that mattered to us? making the world and everything in it [p.s. john tells us jesus was around at this point, so it seems a good add in this list].
#9. have spiritual conversations.
be intentional about allowing the spiritual nomenclature and experiences of your life to affect your conversations. don't run away from honesty about the supernatural and/or the experience of jesus christ [don't be a weirdo about it either, forcing people into engagement with your religious convictions]. we're often careful not to offend others by virtue of bringing up religion, but i've always found that people are typically interested in a respectful disclosure of faith-based dialogue. we shouldn't be hesitant to welcome spirituality into our everyday lives with other people.
this list is, of course, incomplete/flawed/unsatisfying -as-a-thesis. but it is also a true beginning for how we ought to live. it is a starting point . it is the simplicity that will help to guide us through the complexity of doctrine and debate.
do justice
love mercy
stuff like that
cheers
- dave
i just like weird stuff
i like obscure bible passages and ancient near eastern creation myths
i like angelology and alternate atonement theories
i even like watching stupid movies like ghost rider [which, btw, is stupid x 2 ]
but i also find myself driven to try and refine christian spirituality to its most true version
i want to believe and do and experience what jesus christ intended for me to believe and do and experience
as part of this desire, i've begun to think that those of us who follow jesus need to engage in spiritual practices more than we need to engage in theology
even though i love theology
and even though i recognize there is always a danger of works-based righteousness creeping into our understanding of salvation [which, interestingly enough, we always seem more scared of than useless/listless faith that doesn't compel us to act in any way different than how we're feeling from moment to moment].
so - in response to the ever-ontologically probing question "what should we be doing?"
here is the beginnings of my response
which, of course, i base on my understanding of jesus' life as presented in the gospels
#1. get together.
call it fellowship, mentoring, discipleship, or community - i think we ought to just get together with other people and be exposed to the manifestations of the divine life that are reflected in them and in-between us all. we ought to learn from one another, love one another, and learn to be present with one another even when we don't want to or feel like we don't need to.
#2. engage scripture.
yup - we need to read the bible [brilliant, i know]. these days it's common to talk about differing learning styles and the difficulty for some people to find meaning by reading the words of the biblical text; but, to be honest, if we're serious about christ we should be serious about the primary sources that tell us about him. so, if you don't find anything meaningful out of reading the bible - then buy the cd, or enter into a discussion group, or just read one verse per week over and over again and think about it ad naseum. you just can't be a jesus-lover if you're negligent about engaging scripture.
#3. pray.
again, brilliant [i know - lay off]. your prayers don't have to be intelligent, thoughtful, or even coherent in order to "count." just pray. be honest to god - tell him how you're feeling. ask for guidance and wisdom. pray for strength. shutting up is a pretty good idea, too - in an effort to hear his potential responses, though [if you're like me], shutting up is usually quickly followed by shutting my eyes and falling asleep in a puddle of my own apathy/drool.
#4. help the world.
care about the planet. care about injustice. care about people. care about culture/society. care about government...and then do something - do anything to actually try and make a difference. jesus wasn't divorced from the material reality of his day - he lived in it. he engaged pharisees and zealots, romans and ex-pats, politicians and slaves; he engaged politics and culture, societal norms and religious traditions, and he challenged injustice and evil in every way. we should too.
#5. give money.
generosity is an outward manifestation of gratitude to god. give money to people, to charities, to churches, and to npo's all over the planet.
#6. laugh.
i think we're all a little tired of the dour-religious stereotype. jesus partied, played with kids, had close friends, drank good [and alternately, sometimes cheap] wine, and spent most of the gospels eating. that sounds fun [there's obviously more to the story than "fun", but i think we get the confrontational jesus and the benign jesus much more than we get the loving-life-as-gods-gift-lets-enjoy-one-another jesus].
#7. dream up new ideas.
jesus revolutionized commerce, society, religion, and politics in the minds of his followers. isn't there a part of our followership that ought to do the same?
#8. make things.
scripture teaches us we are co-creators with god, image-bearers of the divine reflecting his nature in our activities. his first act that mattered to us? making the world and everything in it [p.s. john tells us jesus was around at this point, so it seems a good add in this list].
#9. have spiritual conversations.
be intentional about allowing the spiritual nomenclature and experiences of your life to affect your conversations. don't run away from honesty about the supernatural and/or the experience of jesus christ [don't be a weirdo about it either, forcing people into engagement with your religious convictions]. we're often careful not to offend others by virtue of bringing up religion, but i've always found that people are typically interested in a respectful disclosure of faith-based dialogue. we shouldn't be hesitant to welcome spirituality into our everyday lives with other people.
this list is, of course, incomplete/flawed/unsatisfying -as-a-thesis. but it is also a true beginning for how we ought to live. it is a starting point . it is the simplicity that will help to guide us through the complexity of doctrine and debate.
do justice
love mercy
stuff like that
cheers
- dave
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART V
What has affected me most about theosis is not that I might gain additional spiritual reward, but that my life might have additional meaning because of the additional quality of God I carry. I get excited thinking about the ways in which God’s own Spirit is transforming me into an imitation of Christ that is not only pious and affectionate, but also passionate and strong.
It would be a mistake, I think, to dismiss these feelings as boyhood fancy or the ticklings of a new thought; rather, I believe that the expression of faith in Christ for me, indeed the very process of my present sanctification as much as is able, has primarily to do with God’s mission of mercy and justice for the world. This is not to overplay my own importance, but to realize that any and all of us have this access to Christus Victor and the pathways of theosis to order and place our steps.
I am left without the option of disregard for ecology or justice issues or the plight of the poor. I am compelled by the example of Christ’s caustic sacrifice to emulate his critique of the dominant power systems and cultural representations of the world around me. But far from believing myself to be an adversary of the world, I believe that theosis causes me to engage the world with a kind of universal sanctification in mind – I find myself an idealist, believing that I can contribute in some measure to making the world a better place.
May God grant us all the wisdom to be counter-cultural without being abusive, to be engaged in critique without being hateful, and to be passionate about justice without neglecting neither love nor piety.
The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART IV
Christus Victor was the dominant theory of the Atonement for the first thousand years of the Christian Church. In contrast to the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, a highly rationalized doctrine wherein Jesus is understood to be the perfect sacrifice who can atone for all the sins of humanity through his death, Christus Victor is perhaps best understood as a “drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin.”[1]
Furthermore, this drama is understood to be subversive. Christ’s death is seen as an “exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him”,[2] and His resurrection as a triumph over these powers. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, then, serve as an indictment of the whole social order at the time – a social order that was based on strength, dominion, and control. This is understood to be much larger than simply the
I think one important component of theosis may mean an embodiment of Christus Victor.
If theosis means recovering the image of God in our humanity, then it must also mean acting on behalf of God for humanity. If we truly are to share in the divine nature, to participate in the image and moral will of God, than I think that has to be far more encompassing than merely behavior modification or personal holiness and lifestyle.
Theosis, and even the process by which we try and attain theosis, ought to have components of justice, disruption, and critique inherent.
A Contemporary Theosis:
Being participants in the divine nature has to mean more than simply the ability to live a more moral life or enjoy more spiritual blessings afterwards. To be a participant in the divine nature means that we must also fully participate in our human nature – as Christ did – and involve ourselves in human concerns albeit with divine authority and perspective. This means we must be transformed from spectators into activists, from mere worshippers into missionaries, and from prosperous USAmericans into life-giving ambassadors of Jesus.
Spectators v. Activists
I use these terms in reference to the global scenarios of injustice and corruption frequently viewed by USAmericans as something terribles somewhere else; yet, I believe that “somewhere else” is only a reality insofar as we negelct to think of the whole earth as our home and the playground of our commonality. A theosis of Christus Victor is a transformation that unifies our understanding of global concerns and compels us to act on behalf of the disenfranchised and underrepresented, to rise up – not with violence and hatred – but with concern and with a voice that cannot be silenced by politic or economy.
Wesley makes excellent commentary on such a “transformation of the economic and political order”[4] when he advocates for the establishment of Pentecostal commun(al)ism and the abolition of war.”[5] He understood these to be one aspect of the political dimension of sanctification, an aspect that would create a “holy dissatisfaction with the way things are” and becomes a “future hope that the present can become something better.”[6]
Though I am not a fan of the creation of a kind of Evangelical Enclave, I am very much in favor of a Christian church that wants to leave the Enclave of western imperialism and “get its hands dirty” in the waterless, hungry world of the poor.
Worshippers v. Missionaries
In The New Creation Theologian Theodore Runyn claims Wesley “understood God's goal as the transformation of this present age, restoring health and holiness to God's creation.”[7] He points out that Wesley saw our ethic as being that of entering “into the life of the world to renew the creature after the divine image and the creation after the divine will”[8], and I believe that ethic extends not only to the rescue of the poor but the redemption of the entire created order.
This is more than a sanctified ecology or an environmental enthusiasm. The redemption of creation is a biblio-centric emphasis that understands that true salvation is salvation for more than personal atonement, but is a restoration of all that has been lost since the Fall. This, of course, hastens us to be reminded of Ireneus’ recapitulation but with the fervor of Greenpeace and the broadening scope of the United Nations and the Presidential Council on Ecology and the Environment.
We can no longer be content to worship in our churches. We must now redeem all of the world as an act of worship, becoming missionaries who not only save souls but also save the planet, the animals, the cultures and the ethos of our world. It is a more comprehensive calling, more noble, but also more in line with theosis as it was perhaps understood by the Fathers.
Prosperous Americans v. Life-Giving Christ-Followers
The final movement I see required in a contemporary understanding of theosis is that we learn to see ourselves as a resource for the rest of the world, rather than the idolized playboy of the third-world and/or crumbling communism. Where once Christianity was the author of the American Dream, now I think we have to understand that – for many, many people – the acquisition of the American Dream comes at the expense of never waking up to the reality of the Bolivian Nightmare or the Rwandan Insomnia.
Our orientation must shift somewhat from primarily carrying a gospel of democracy and freedom to the leaders of the world, to carrying a gospel of things like clean water and public education to their children. I realize it is presumptuous to assert that more money from American tax dollars is the solution to the unfortunate economies of less-priveliged states, but I also believe that many Evangelical churches buy their way out of concern for those states with one-time gifts of charity and a short-term mission trip.
We must make larger, longer, investments in places where the time and attention of our finances can be seen to literally create a new world for villages and towns racked by natural disasters, former dictators, and the absence of infrastructure. If used correctly, our money can be a significant step towards solving a significant amount of the problems faced by isolated groups of people and I believe that a contemporary theosis has inherent within it that we try.
When we begin to see theosis in this light, the light of our embodiment of Christus Victor, then I think it has different implications for us than just personal holiness. Without downplaying the significance and worth of piety, allow me to say that I was raised in a holiness tradition and understood faith for many years as primarily good behavior motivated by affection for God. Now, however, the more of the scriptures that I read, the more I became convinced that the world is overrun with injustice and a significant portion of my reflection/embodiment of the divine nature has to be concern for the concerns of God.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor Accessed
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor Accessed
[3] Gustav Allen, Christus Victor (London: Macmillan, 1969).
[4] Theodore W Jennings. Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics, (Abingdon Press, 1990), 153
[5] Theodore W Jennings. Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics, (Abingdon Press, 1990), 153
[6] Cf. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:kEdjTupOIvQJ:www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/emtc-paper-holiness_and_the_wider_ecumenical_perspective.doc+wesley+moral,+political,+natural,+image+of+god&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4 Accessed
[7] Theodore Runyn. The New Creation: John Wesley's Theology Today, (Abingdon Press, 1998), 169.
[8] Theodore Runyn. The New Creation: John Wesley's Theology Today, (Abingdon Press, 1998), 169.
The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART III
Because of my previous lack of familiarity with the doctrine of theosis, I have found it helpful to trace the origins of thought surrounding it through the Patristic Period and into the Middle Ages. In no way is this a comprehensive look at the development of theosis doctrine; rather, this section will serve as an overview of the material contained within The Story of Christian Theology as pertaining specifically to theosis and its development in order to supply the reader with the foundation for my interest in it.
Ignatius of Antioch, d. c.110-115 A.D.?
Theosis – or some precursor of it – seems to come first into the theology of Ignatius and his understanding of the sacraments. Ignatius believed that each time one participated in the Eucharist, he was transformed by the sacrament as a means of grace. Though his thoughts were not fully recorded or developed along the eventual implications of this belief, he did “mean to emphasize that by partaking in the bread and wine of the Lord’s meal, a person is gaining a participation in the divine immortality that overcomes the curse of death brought on by sin.”[1] Centuries later, this basis of belief became the understanding for believers in both Catholic and Orthodox traditions that each time they participated in the sacrament they were given increasingly more of the divine nature.
Ireneus, c.120-202 A.D.
If anyone could most rightly be called the father of theosis doctrine it would be Ireneus. His understanding of the Incarnation-- a metaphysical “do-over”, so to speak-- lay the groundwork for his vision of humanity’s participation in the divine nature. For Ireneus, God’s “purpose and goal in redemption is to reverse the sin, corruption and death introduced into humanity by Adam and lift humanity up to life and immortality.”[2] He saw this as being accomplished through the union of Christ’s two natures – divine and material – which make provision for believers to follow suit. Theosis asserts the complete restoration of all people, in principle, through the recapitulation of Christ by which He “provided redemption by going through the entire scope of human life and at each juncture reversed the disobedience of Adam.” Thus, anyone who now chooses to accept Christ as their “new head” [hence, recapitulation] will trade their old, corrupt “head” [born of Adam – the first head of humanity] and be able to find repentance and transformation with the hope of participating in the divine nature.
For many fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in his person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.[3]
Nevertheless, it is from Ireneus that most of the latter theologians take their cue. He was the first one to truly follow the implications of Ignatius’ thoughts to their practical conclusions and make use of the doctrine in such a way as to help our understanding of soteriology.
Origen of Alexandria, c.182-251 A.D.
Origen understood theosis as the ultimate goal of every believer’s life. For him, theosis was the journey and the struggle of faith that was the centerpiece of Christian living, and he encouraged his adherents to scour the scriptures for the “most important level of meaning in the scripture”[4] which often revealed how believers ought to live in order to further their divinization.
Origen conceived salvation as a “process of transformation into the image of God”[5] which would eventually lead believers into a partial participation in God’s own nature, though he did value human free will in the midst of this transformation alongside the “absolute necessity”[6] of God’s grace. In this way, we might conceive of his soteriology as a kind of synergy, wherein human thoughts and will and emotions cooperate with the Spirit of God to gradually reflect more of His nature.
Origen’s thoughts seem most consistent with the contemporary Evangelical notions of “working out your salvation”,[7] or even of the process of sanctification or holy living. He steps into contentious territory in the tension between grace-and-behavior/law, but with the intention of encouraging theosis-transformation rather than simply behavior-modification.
Athanasius, c. 298-373 A.D.
Next in line was Athanasius, though his orientation on theosis was more of a defense versus Arianism than it was an assertion of Christ’s humanity. Athanasius believed that Christ’s union of the divine and the material was the soteriological bridge that allows people to be saved; and, if that union were in some way compromised – i.e. if Jesus were not “truly God” – than the salvation of humanity was impossible. So Athanasius’ rationale was that the “human problem was death because of sin”[8] and the solution was “deification by means of humanity and divinity being joined in the Incarnation.”[9]
For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the Unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality.
Note that Athanasius makes careful mention of the duality of Jesus’ existence: He is both “manifested” and is able to give us an “immortal” inheritance. In his fight against the Arian heresy, Athanasius was very clear about the fact that the gospel was about Jesus Christ, and “if Jesus Christ was not God and human, then he could not bring the two together…[and] salvation would be reduced to living a good moral life…”[10]
Gregory of Nazianzus, c.329-389 A.D.
Much of Gregory’s thinking about theosis had to do with combating Apollinarianism, which denied that Christ’s “spirit”[11] never fully entered human experience and/or limitations, but instead wore His humanity like a suit which was ultimately discarded. For Gregory, this constituted a threat to salvation, for if Jesus Christ’s humanity was not complete, then neither could we be saved wholly through it. Apollinarius’ theology, on the other hand, “could work whether one believed the Son of God who dwelled in Jesus Christ as his rational soul was eternal God or created demigod”,[12] which many heretics had already begun to teach. Yet this teaching was ultimately condemned as heresy because of the reality that Gregory foresaw, which was that no true bridge between the wholly divine nature of God and the wholly material nature of humanity could be made without Jesus Christ having wholly become human. The incarnation was the bridge between these two natures, and theosis was the “process of grace transforming humans into partial participants in the divine nature through the wonderful exchange of the incarnation.”[13]
Gregory of Nyssa, c. 334-394 A.D.
Perhaps this Gregory’s most significant contribution to the doctrine of theosis is that of epektasis. Epektasis, or “constant progress”, was Gregory’s way of understanding the perpetual climb of humanity out of our fallen nature. It was the way in which he chose to represent theosis as “constant progress in godliness and virtue” and noted that it is the goal of humanity to “become more and more perfect, more like God, even though [we] will never understand, much less attain, God’s transcendence.”[14]
This doctrine particularly rubbed with the Platonic philosophy that immutability is perfection and any ability to change constituted an imperfection; hence, many Platonists neglected to see the spiritual nature of progress in the same way that Gregory did. In Gregory’s view, however, he understood God to be immutable – because He was/is already perfect – but insisted we must change [ergo voluntarily be imperfect] in order to become more like God, who is supremely Perfect.
Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274 A.D.
Arguably the greatest theologian since the Apostle Paul, Aquinas’ was a welcome voice in the conversation about the significance and meaning of theosis, particularly in our understanding of how theosis brings together both justification [the judicial/satisfaction side of salvation [and] sanctification [the internal side of personal holiness]. For Aquinas, “grace is a work of God in human beings raising them above their human nature to the point where they become sharers in the divine nature.”[15] Significant to Aquinas’ line of thought was his belief that human nature was not ruined by the Fall in Genesis 3; rather, the Fall destroyed “original righteousness” but not human nature. Human nature, according to Aquinas, retained the image of God during the Fall and that nature is revitalized through transformation by God’s supernatural grace into the nature of the divine.
As we have traced theosis through these theologians, it becomes clear that the doctrine is morphing somewhat in its scope. Whereas some of the earlier writers might have thought theosis in more mystical terms, we begin to see in the latter ones the idea that we are returning to something from which we have been taken; or, more accurately, something is being returned to us. Aquinas in particular seems to suggest that our theosis is a re-entry into a pre-Fall Edenic identity that is more truly, more authentically, human insofar as we define humanity as bearing the image and likeness of God.
It is this notion of our true humanity that I would like to put forward as a beginning for a contemporary theosis. I believe there may be great benefit to our evangelistic efforts and our spiritual conversations with the world if we frame things in this light. I will explore these ideas later on in the article.
[1] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 48.
[2] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 77.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed
[4] Cf. Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 106.
[5] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 112.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Cf. Philippians 2.12b
[8] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 169.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 170-171.
[11] In reference to the Platonic distinction of the three components of being: body, soul, spirit.
[12] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 189.
[13] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 189.
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa Accessed
[15] Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Claredon, 1992), 264.
The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART II
Theosis is the name of a doctrine that originated in the Patristic period. It concerns the claim that Christians are able to be transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit to become more morally and willfully intact; that is, believers are given a co operant grace to participate in the restoration of the moral image of God. It is the “call to man to become holy and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection”[1] and, though often equated with Eastern Orthodox or Catholic theology in contemporary thought, is frequently conceived as something akin to sanctification in Protestant theology.
The word theosis literally means “ingodded”, though it is often translated as deification or divinization. The doctrine is understood to be grounded in Scriptures (Psalms 82:6, John
The doctrine began to gain credence with the axiom-driven support of such enthusiasts as Ireneus, who claimed that “if the Word was made man it is that men might become gods”[4], and Athenasius, who marked the purpose of the Incarnation that “God became man so that man might become God.”[5] Ireneus, in particular, saw “salvation as transformation of humans into partakers of the divine nature”[6] and in later days his thoughts were often accompanied by scriptures such as 1 Peter 1.4 (“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires”).
The transformation brought about through theosis is multi-faceted, and theosis itself furthers our image and understanding of God. Through theoria, the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus, believers will “come to know and experience what it means to be fully [in the created image of God].”[7] This is a restoration of the moral image of God in humanity. Through communion with Christ, “God shares Himself with humanity in order to conform them to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness,”[8] which is the process by which believers are made holy in their character. St. Maximus the Confessor, a proponent and defender of the doctrine of theosis c. 580-682, wrote:
"A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man. For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb.
The contemporary view of western Catholics differs slightly from this perspective, however, and sees theosis as a “specific and advanced form of contemplative prayer,”[10] while that of modern Protestants, with the exception of Methodists and some pietists, tends to ignore the term theosis in favor of some version of the doctrine of sanctification or, more commonly, entire sanctification.
Yet those who hold to the doctrine of theosis would mark a distinction between their understanding of divinization as substantively more than the Protestant doctrine of sanctification. For, while theosis boasts no ontological change – i.e. humanity actually becoming fully divine in nature – there is an ontological participation by which there is a “very real participation in the divine life.”[11] “The Orthodox hope of salvation,” says scholar Ross Aden, “in its broadest sense is more than hope of a divine sentence of 'not guilty' or even of a beatific vision; it is `human participation in the being of God . . . a total sharing in the Triune life.”[12] According to some scholars the western churches come closest to this kind of understanding through the use of the phrase “the imitation of Christ”[13], the “imitation”, however, is of a different quality than the “manifestation of the energies of the Holy Spirit.”[14]
Theosis is, perhaps, one way in which Protestants [and particularly Evangelicals] may rediscover a healthy emphasis on the ongoing progress of the Christian life which seems all-too-absent from our popular teachings. Though to some it may seem like simply a “re-branding” of Wesleyan sanctification doctrine, I believe there is a richness to this theology that may not be fully represented in our understanding of sanctification; and, one in which we find great meaning and encouragement to follow Christ.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed:
[2] Bishop Kallistos Ware, The
[3] Bishop Kallistos Ware, The
[4] Against Heresies, Bk. V. Pref. col. 1035
[5] On the Incarnation of the Word, Bk. IV. par 65
[6] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 77.
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed
[9] PHILOKALIA Volume II, page 178
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed
[11] http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html Accessed
[12] Ross Aden, "Justification and Sanctification: A Conversation Between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 38:1 (1994):96-98.
[13] Cf. http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html#23 Accessed
[14] http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html#23. Accessed
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century
"For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the Unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality."
As a Protestant/Pentecostal, I had never before encountered the term theosis until reading The Story of Christian Theology.[1] While satisfied with the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement as a manner of understanding grace and salvation, there has always been a part of my mind that saw and understood the act of Christ’s death as a means of defiance. Indeed, reading and theologians like Walter Brueggemann, or even the popular Tony Campolo, tend to foster the idea of Christ as a dissident; but, more so, it just seemed like Christ’s decision to be crucified, early on, in front of his mother, in spite of Judas, was an act composited from a thousand errands of defiance. Jesus died spectacularly, and the spectacle with which he died is often lost in our conversations about what it meant simply for Him to be a sacrifice.
My investigation of theosis, fostered by learning somewhat of Christus Victor, has given me a new perspective on what the crucifixion means to me as a follower of Jesus Christ. I’m not entirely prepared to say that I have completely changed my theology, but I am more than prepared to say that this complement to my growing understanding of the vast array of theological discussion has invigorated my convictions that Jesus is offering us all a better life and a better humanity through Himself.
In this article I will endeavor to unpack the relevance and potential application for an understanding of theosis in the 21st Century.
[1] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
