www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Face of God: Byz On-Line Book Study -- Week 1

>>>I have observed, however, that this theosis plays a decidedly minor key in Byzantine spirituality. Many of the Eastern
prayers emphasize the unbridgeable gulf between man and God, man's weakness before the the Trinity. In a
Byzantine morning prayer we say: "Neither did you destroy me in my transgressions". A number of posters to this
forum sign themselves "sinner" or even "archsinner". If taken out of context, such sentiments might even appear
Calvinist!<<<

Calvinism? Ah, shades of Kyril Lukaris!

I think one of the things most distinctive about Byzantine Christianity is that it is comprised of seemingly incompatible elements which are held in dynamic tension, and thus form an entirely new synthesis which transcends those elements.

The key to Byzantine spirituality is indeed the concept of theosis, of "man becoming God"; it is found throughout the liturgy of the Church,and it fulfills the works of the Fathers--most explicitly Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor. Byzantine anthropology says that man was created to share in the divine nature of his Creator; only man, among all the creation, is a psychosomatic entity consisting of both matter and spirit, and which thus puts him in contact with the totality of the creation. But man lost that true communion with God through the sin of disobedience, and was alienated from God, and thus became prey to death and corruption, and through death and corruption to the passions which predispose man to sin, which thus keeps the process going. Through his incarnation, Christ did several things. First, by taking on our human nature, he sanctified it; second, by living in the material world, he sanctified matter; third, by his living example he showed us how to be truly human; and fourth, by his death and resurrection he delivered us from our bondage to death and corruption, thus enabling us to share in the divine nature once more.

To do so, man must overcome the passions and become true to his real nature. He can only do that by living a life in Christ, by being Christ--an icon of the true man who was also an icon of the Father.

Taken to extremes, this perspective can lead one into the error of Pelagianism (as popularly understood--an attempt by man to pull himself up by his moral bootstraps) and an undue exaltation of man. The Byzantine Tradition avoids this pitfall through an intense awareness of personal sin and unworthiness. This, in turn, is supposed to spur us to greater efforts to overcome sin and complete our theosis, which in turn makes us even more aware of our shortcomings. It is interesting that the Desert Fathers, and Byzantine monastics generally, who demonstrate this awareness most keenly (even though, or especially because, they have achieved a much higher state of holiness than have most of us). Thus, asked what one does at a monastary, one monk responded, "We fall and get up again, fall and get up again". Which explains perfectly both the Byzantine concept of theosis and the seemingly contradictory awareness of sin.

Stuart,

Thanks for your explanation of how the concept of theosis can co-exist with the seemingly contradictory awareness of sin. I have no quarrel with your arguments, but I'm not sure they do justice to the situation.

You mention that theosis needs to be balanced by a sense of sin if we are not to fall into the temptation of Pelagianism. But what about the obverse side of the coin, the temptation to over-scrupulousness if we focus too exclusively on our shortcomings? If pushed too hard, this can lead to a sense of worthlessness and a paralyzing, false docility. It chills the spirit and discourages us from actively participating in the world and lifting it up to God (recall that all of creation, not just man, is called to theosis). To give a provocative example, there is discussion on another thread about the apparent lack of involvement by Eastern Christians in the pro-life movement. Might not a false docility contribute to this lack of involvement (if it is true)?

I don't think you attempted to answer my question of how one "experiences" theosis. If the only consequence of a deepening theosis is a more acute awareness of one's shortcomings, then who needs it?? I don't need theosis to remind me of my sinfulness (my 5 children do an excellent job of putting me into situations where my shortcomings are abundantly obvious!). What are the positive experiences, the deep satisfactions? The East has a great deal to teach the West about genuine experience (it's not just sensations and sentiments). The experience of theosis would be a terrific place to start.

In Christ,
Steven

Dear Brother Dozier and forum members --

I was doing a little surfing between customer calls (I work at home) and found this thread. So impressed was I with the quick scan of the posts that I have printed it out for further study. I think many of the things said here will help me as I seek to understand the Eastern pheroma (hope I spelled that right).

I am especially interested in the discussions regarding theosis and the personal and painful awareness we have of not only our sin, but of how much our old nature is attracted to it and loves it.

What an incredible thing to think that in Heaven, should I be so blessed as to be found true and faithful, the slightest inclinations I have towards loving God and holiness will be magnified infinately and these great lusts I wrestle with will not even exist!!

Amazing!!

I continue to sense a sweetness in Eastern thought which is as alluring as the smell of fresh baked bread.

Brother Ed

>>>You mention that theosis needs to be balanced by a sense of sin if we are not to fall into the temptation of Pelagianism. But what
about the obverse side of the coin, the temptation to over-scrupulousness if we focus too exclusively on our shortcomings? If pushed
too hard, this can lead to a sense of worthlessness and a paralyzing, false docility. It chills the spirit and discourages us from actively
participating in the world and lifting it up to God (recall that all of creation, not just man, is called to theosis). To give a provocative
example, there is discussion on another thread about the apparent lack of involvement by Eastern Christians in the pro-life movement.
Might not a false docility contribute to this lack of involvement (if it is true)?<<<

I think that you have hit upon an important point, one of which the Desert Fathers were aware (I doubt that any of us can contribute a significant insight to what they have already given us, we merely follow after them). I think the solution that they would offer comes from the fact that a life in Christ requires that we love one another, as Christ loved us. Love requires human beings to be in a relationship--even hermits have a relationship with God, and know that He loves them dearly, as dearly as they love Him. Knowledge of that love sustains them, even when they stumble.

We, who live in the world, are fortunate not only to have God's love on which to lean, but also each other. Remember always that the Church is a community, and that while (as a Slavic saying goes), "Each man condemns himself, but no man can be saved by himself". We must rely on each other, strengthen each other, and sustain each other when one of us falls. The need to love, and to be loved in return, allows us to recognize our own value, even as we recognize our sins and transgressions.

The theme of Chapter 5, "God - Love Appearing in the Flesh", is Christ. In the section on the Nativity, Archbishop Raya compares the Western and Eastern approaches to the feast: Byzantine piety dwells on the divine aspect of the mystery of Christ. The Latin piety tends to emphasize the humanity �. The Western attitude engenders a piety marked with tender familiarity; the Eastern attitude inspires awesome adoration.. This contrast holds for the entire figure of Jesus/Christ. In keeping with the Eastern orientation, this chapter singles out those aspects of Christ's life that highlight his Sonship in the Trinity -- the Baptism, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection. The Western viewpoint would have emphasized Jesus the man, later understood to be the Son of God -- His miracles, healing, teachings and passion and death. Both are valid perspectives, albeit there is a crying need in our culture for Eastern transcendence and awe.

To me, the single most arresting item was the single footnote in the chapter. It appears in the section on the Nativity, elaborating on the idea that Christ descended into the darkness of the earth to become Light of the World: Byzantine asceticism presents man's salvation as intimately connected with the degree one shares in this divine self-emptying, this divine "descent" and self-giving and lowliness. This "kenotic" life involves peaceful resistance, or even the absence of resistance to suffering, war and violence.

What a wonderful perspective on asceticism! One fasts, prays and "loses oneself" to share in Christ's self-emptying. Whereas Christ emptied himself to take on our human nature fully, we do so to embrace the divine. This answers, in part, my earlier question as to how Byzantines can square theosis on one hand with a deepening sense of sin on the other. As we gain in theosis, we become more and more aware of our lowliness, our "creatureliness". This implies our sinfulness, to be sure, but also our state of being absolutely dependent on God and terribly short of His greatness.

The second sentence in the quote is very different, much more provocative. I can fully agree with it when taken in the context of, say, stem cell research using aborted fetuses. Ultimately, they hope to find a cure for Alzheimer's, and justify any and all manner of research in the name of "resistance to suffering". Anything is allowed because all suffering is a very bad thing, almost "inhuman". This is most emphatically not the Christian perspective.

On the other hand, some issues (notably the "culture wars") demand resistance, even unpeaceable resistance to the extent that it confronts and upsets the status quo. How does this square with what the Archbishop is saying? Is self-giving and an awareness of lowliness incompatible with active resistance to the worst of our surroundings?

In Christ,
Steven

>>>On the other hand, some issues (notably the "culture wars") demand resistance, even unpeaceable resistance to the extent that it
confronts and upsets the status quo. How does this square with what the Archbishop is saying? Is self-giving and an awareness of
lowliness incompatible with active resistance to the worst of our surroundings?<<<

Tom Wright, the Anglican theologian, once again provides a profound and complimentary insight: the power to bind and loose is given to all Christians through their baptism into the Royal Priesthood: we are to forgive the sins that others commit against us, but on the other hand, we are to bind those who sin against others, the weak and the innocent. We are called upon to condemn sin whereever it is found, while offering forgiveness and redemption to sinners. This is a very difficult teaching, for most people find it almost impossible to condemn sin without at the same time condemning the sinner. On the other hand, forgiving sins, especially those commited against us and those we love, are very difficult to forgive, indeed! Eastern Catholics should know about that one, first hand.

Dear Brethren --

Just a short note. This thread by far has been the most educational, inspiring, and challenging thing I have read in years of professing to be a believer. I continually find in Eastern thought the very reverence which I desire yet fall short of in my own life. I also find the challenge to make that mine as I strive within the faith to cooperate with the process of theosis.

I have ordered the book from Light and Life and look forward to reading it!

May the peace of God be with you all.

Brother Ed