The 'essence/energies' distinction. Is it necessary?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
There has been controversy between the Christian West and Christian East over the distinction between God's 'essence' - which is 'unknowable' - and his 'energies' through which God reveals himself (apologies for the male pronoun, but I'll use it for convenience if that's ok).
It started as an internal dispute among the Orthodox in the 14th century and later became a bone of contention between the 'Greek East' and 'Latin West'.
St Gregory Palamas was the main proponent and taught that God was essentially unknowable and unapproachable in his 'essence' - ousia - but able to be apprehended by how he reveals himself through his uncreated (key term) and eternal 'energies' - energeia.
It coincided with controversy over monastic contemplative practices and the claim that hesychasts could sometimes physically see as well as spiritually discern God's 'Uncreated Light' as the disciples did at the Transfiguration.
Opponents of this view, like Barlaam of Calabria who later became an RC bishop, argued that it compromised divine simplicity and that direct physical-spiritual experience of God's 'Uncreated Light' amounted to polytheism or heresy.
It did generate a lot of heat as well as light ...
Some of St Gregory's opponents drew on 'Western' theological concepts such as the Aristotelian actus purus and ideas such as the 'Unmoved Mover' popularised by Aquinas to contest their points. It wasn't as if 'Western' influences didn't impinge on the Christian East.
This led later Orthodox theologians to use the controversy as a kind of 'test-case' to pitch Orthodox experiential theology against 'Western Scholasticism.'
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. The Vatican, I understand, whilst not taking a dogmatic position, has since 'warmed' towards Palamas and hesychasm to some extent. I also understand that in ecumenical dialogue there continue to be questions as to whether the Palamite distinction is incompatible with Western perspectives.
There were, of course, socio-political dimensions, as ever, with civil war among the Byzantines and the usual jockeyings between Popes and Patriarchs etc etc.
I'd not come across the Palamite controversy until I began moving towards Orthodoxy and to some extent still wonder what the fuss was about.
But I pitch the 'distinction' out there for discussion on various grounds including:
- To reinforce the point I've made several times that the 'Eastern' view of divine 'impassibility' does not include the Aristotelian idea of the 'Unmoved Mover'.
- That a 'classic' view of divine 'impassibility' does not preclude an experiential dimension.
- That, given time, both 'East' and 'West' can come to a closer understanding over issues that were formally highly contentious.
That gives me hope for ecumenical dialogue despite recent set-backs.
I recognise that many Shipmates may not be familiar with this 'distinction' and equally that others will know a heck of a lot more about these things than I do.
My question is, can it be helpful in terms of reconciling apparent anomalies and contradictions?
Or does it complicate things further?
It started as an internal dispute among the Orthodox in the 14th century and later became a bone of contention between the 'Greek East' and 'Latin West'.
St Gregory Palamas was the main proponent and taught that God was essentially unknowable and unapproachable in his 'essence' - ousia - but able to be apprehended by how he reveals himself through his uncreated (key term) and eternal 'energies' - energeia.
It coincided with controversy over monastic contemplative practices and the claim that hesychasts could sometimes physically see as well as spiritually discern God's 'Uncreated Light' as the disciples did at the Transfiguration.
Opponents of this view, like Barlaam of Calabria who later became an RC bishop, argued that it compromised divine simplicity and that direct physical-spiritual experience of God's 'Uncreated Light' amounted to polytheism or heresy.
It did generate a lot of heat as well as light ...
Some of St Gregory's opponents drew on 'Western' theological concepts such as the Aristotelian actus purus and ideas such as the 'Unmoved Mover' popularised by Aquinas to contest their points. It wasn't as if 'Western' influences didn't impinge on the Christian East.
This led later Orthodox theologians to use the controversy as a kind of 'test-case' to pitch Orthodox experiential theology against 'Western Scholasticism.'
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. The Vatican, I understand, whilst not taking a dogmatic position, has since 'warmed' towards Palamas and hesychasm to some extent. I also understand that in ecumenical dialogue there continue to be questions as to whether the Palamite distinction is incompatible with Western perspectives.
There were, of course, socio-political dimensions, as ever, with civil war among the Byzantines and the usual jockeyings between Popes and Patriarchs etc etc.
I'd not come across the Palamite controversy until I began moving towards Orthodoxy and to some extent still wonder what the fuss was about.
But I pitch the 'distinction' out there for discussion on various grounds including:
- To reinforce the point I've made several times that the 'Eastern' view of divine 'impassibility' does not include the Aristotelian idea of the 'Unmoved Mover'.
- That a 'classic' view of divine 'impassibility' does not preclude an experiential dimension.
- That, given time, both 'East' and 'West' can come to a closer understanding over issues that were formally highly contentious.
That gives me hope for ecumenical dialogue despite recent set-backs.
I recognise that many Shipmates may not be familiar with this 'distinction' and equally that others will know a heck of a lot more about these things than I do.
My question is, can it be helpful in terms of reconciling apparent anomalies and contradictions?
Or does it complicate things further?
Comments
However we view or assess this claim, it did lead to him entering Christian ministry as an Anglican priest. His theology may differ from mine to a certain extent but I see no reason not to take his account at face value, even allowing for psychological influences/effects.
Tangent/coda over.
Of course arguments continue about what exactly “we know in part”. But it’s a helpful reminder of our necessary ignorance while still being people of faith. We have assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things not seen.
It pays to be humble.
But that wasn't my question.
My question is whether it helps or hinders us in addressing issues like 'divine impassibility' and 'synergism' vs 'monergism' and other apparently dichotomous issues we've been discussing recently.
As an Orthodox Christian I believe it does, but other Christians may think otherwise.
From an Orthodox perspective I believe it both 'preserves' the classic Patristic view of 'divine impassibility' which doesn't rely as much on Aristotelian models as later 'Western' models as exemplified by Aquinas- and through him the Protestant Reformers to some extent - and moves the debate on a touch - insofar as Orthodox theology ever moves anything 'on' ... 😉
And that doesn't mean that everything is all wrapped up and there's no more to be said about anything.
Which isn't the same as a 'semper reformanda' position either.
That’s not to say I necessarily think the distinction is wrong, or that I don’t recognize others may find it helpful. But to me, it’s always seemed very academic, and at the end, I’m thinking “okay, so . . . .”
I understand the distinction being made. But I’m afraid I have a hard time caring about the distinction being made, or making it relevant to things I do care about.
Unless you’ve already done so and it’s been missed. In which case apologies in advance!
A link I found
https://www.patristicpillars.com/post/a-primer-on-the-essence-and-energies-distinction
We aren't talking about divine electric currents as @Dafyd rightly discerns.
Ok, how can the Palamite distinction between God's 'essence' - ousia - and his eternal and uncreated actions/operation - energeia - help us with the 'passibility/impassibility' issue?
I've cited the Western hymn All My Hope On God Is Founded before. Let's start with that.
'God unknown [God in his ousia] He alone, calls my heart to be His own i]energeia[/i.
God is 'unknown' and beyond our ken in his essence, but makes himself known to us in his action/operation - 'calls my heart to be his own.'
Note 'heart' - God is Love. We love God because he first loved us.
This is a 'heart' issue as well as a 'head' one. Both/and.
So God can be 'impassible' in the classic sense - unchanging, constant, wholly transcendent - in his essence, his being, but emanating eternally from that are his uncreated actions and operations as it were.
So, Love isn't simply an attribute of God, it is who God is.
Grace is not some kind of commodity but an 'uncreated' energy or action that is intrinsic to God Himself.
Likewise, to go down the 'hesychast' route, the 'Uncreated Light of Tabor' wasn't something God ignited with a heavenly cigarette lighter - it is the eternal Light of the Godhead. 'God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all.'
What Palamas and his supporters were saying, and what the Orthodox Church as a whole eventually agreed, was that whilst it is impossible for us to 'know' God in his essence it is possible to know and to experience God through his divine and eternal, uncreated actions - even to the point of people being able - by divine grace - to perceive and apprehend the Uncreated Light of God Himself.
You can see how this is heady and powerful stuff and something of a 'hard saying, who can accept it?'
Barlaam thought that the hesychasts were inducing these kind of experiences artificially, through prolonged 'navel-gazing' - some would bend themselves double almost as they repeated the Jesus Prayer and ascetic practice. I'm sure that can happen. The Orthodox are always careful to provide guidelines and checks and balances to anyone who goes in for prolonged repetition of the Jesus Prayer in order to avoid self-hypnosis or even 'demonic' experiences.
But coming back to the Palamite distinction, you can see, I think, even if you don't share the insight yourselves, how it can help us hold 'divine impassibility' alongside what we might call the emotional or affective side of things.
Yes, these things are couched in ancient and medieval anthropological terms but that doesn't mean they are no longer useful or have no place in a living Tradition.
FWIW I noticed the URC minister on BBC Radio 4's Sunday Worship from Port Sunlight on the Wirral pray in a way that struck me as entirely commensurate with this kind of view.
He addressed God in one of those prayers which tell God who He is and what he's like - you know the kind - 'Loving God you are ... etc' etc etc [insert attribute here].'
I'm not mocking or scoffing at that. It's how they pray in his tradition. We Orthodox have similar expressions in our Liturgical texts.
He went on to 'inform' the Almighty how he was beyond our ken and essentially unknowable but how Christ had made God known and 'imaginable' to us. 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father', as it were.
To be honest, I've been surprised to some extent at the apparent opposition to the idea of 'divine impassibility' here as I've tended to think that most Protestant traditions hold that in some form or other - although it can go to extremes in some quarters with a cuddly God the Son set in opposition to a tyrannical God the Father at times.
Be that as it may, the Orthodox 'take' on these things is essentially the classic Patristic one with some extra 'colour' and expansion if you like added through the Palamite distinction between the divine essence and divine energies which I have inadequately attempted to outline here.
(But I do enjoy the distinction between the various forms the distinction might take: "real", "virtual" or "formal".)
To be more precise, I can understand (I think ), why you see it as helpful in holding “‘divine impassibility’ alongside what we might call the emotional or affective side of things,” but for me, it gets in the way.
But yes, I do find it helpful in 'holding together' the 'impassibility' side, if we can put it that way, with the emotional and affective aspects.
I can understand how it might 'get in the way' if you don't share the same suppositions, as it were.
This is an imperfect analogy, as all analogies are, but it's one I've used here before I think. I've seen people respond in an emotional, and to buttoned-up 'Western' sensibilities a somewhat disconcerting way to Orthodox iconography. This seems counter-intuitive to an extent as icons are painted in such a way as not to overtly stir the emotions unlike some forms of RC imagery, for instance.
The faces of icons are 'impassive' - we might say 'impassible' - and the perspective and other aspects are deliberately unnaturalistic. Not all of them are aesthetically pleasing either. Some are pretty rough and ready.
Yet somehow, their 'energies' if we can put it that way, the way they 'operate' can have an effect on people. They are stylised and 'impassible' in one way but they can be dynamic in their effects and operation - their 'energies'.
The hypostatic union might be a better example.
Whatever the case, and while you are on, @Nick Tamen, I've opined on the latest 'impassibility' thread how the early Reformed tradition was very strong on divine impassibility. Calvin made a big deal of it and so did the Westminster Divines.
I obviously understand that modern-day Reformed Christians don't necessarily share all of the views expresssed in the Institutes or the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort or various Presbyterian and other councils etc - nor do they elevate them to the status of the great historic Creeds. I get that.
But I have found some of your statements puzzling given that your tradition placed great emphasis on this issue in its 'foundational' stages - and, it has to be said - in a more 'Aristotelian' way than the Orthodox have ever done. We never subscribed to the idea of an 'Unmoved Mover', for instance.
I'm not saying that your Reformed credentials are somehow impaired - semper reformanda and all that - but I must say I have been surprised at the extent to which both @Lamb Chopped and your good self have repudiated any notion of 'divine impassibility' given that it appears to have been a strong emphasis in the early stages of the Reformation.
Is it because the Reformers weren't sola scriptura enough
Otherwise, this is turning into yet another example of a thread that serves as a vehicle for criticising other traditions and Traditions.
In some ways you are making my point for me. We do learn to 'read' an icon or liturgical and sacramental actions of one form or other in the way we learn to read the scriptures.
And we do so according to the mores and 'tools' of whichever Christian tradition we inhabit.
I've learned - or am learning - to approach the scriptures, iconography, liturgies, prayers and sacramental actions etc in an Orthodox way.
Others are doing so in a Reformed, or Lutheran or RC or Anglican or 'baptistic' or Whatever Else way.
The essence/energies distinction makes sense to me as I'm approaching it from within the Tradition in which it was framed.
It makes less sense - or proves less useful - to others because they operate within a different frame of reference. It doesn't mean they don't 'understand' the concept I'm trying to convey but it does mean that they don't find it as 'useful' as I do as they aren't approaching it in the same way.
It doesn't mean they aren't my brothers and sisters in Christ or that one or other of us are going to Hell because we take a different view of these things.
I'm not upset or offended if Shipmates take a different view to me on these things, and I'll readily acknowledge that I can post in unhelpfully polemical or sarcastic ways at times.
I apologise for any offence I may have given.
But there's nothing 'wrong' with any of us setting out what we might believe as Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, RC, Orthodox or other types of Christian provided we do so respectfully.
Or as an atheist or agnostic or someone from a non-Christian faith for that matter.
If I have drifted from that respectful principle here then I apologise for doing so.
There are limits of course.
You have raised the issue of 'limits' and there'll be different views as to where those lines are drawn.
I like the late Tom Smail's analogy of having a big elastic band around our waists that secures us to the 'core' of the Christian tradition. We can wander up all sorts of labyrinthine by-ways as the elastic band will always draw us back to the centre.
It doesn't mean that the elastic band can't snap though, and it also presupposes we can all agree on what the central 'core' comprises.
But it is a helpful analogy I think.
Answering my own question. The Orthodox answer appears to be both/and.
The Orthodox take on most things is 'both/and'.
That's why we have an issue with the Reformation Sola statements as we don’t find them in scripture or Tradition.
Not that scripture is seperate from Tradition of course.
The classic Orthodox position on the essence/energies distinction is that God is unknowable in his ousia, his essence - but can be known or apprehended through his actions/energies - which proceed eternally and 'uncreated' from his nature.
I've been told off for using the word 'impassibility' and I'm not sure how you are applying the term 'passibility' to God's 'essence' here as that seems a contradiction in terms.
Poets say it best:
'He fathers forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise Him'
I can't say it any better than Gerard Manley Hopkins who is entirely Orthodox at this point it seems to me.
'He fathers forth [energeia] whose beauty is past change [ousia].
Is that what you are saying or upholding?
No longer!
I asked Google the question this morning. In Orthodoxy is divine impassibility essence or energy and it answered “In Eastern Orthodoxy divine impassibility is an attribute of His unchangeable essence and His uncreated energies rather than belonging exclusively to one side of the essence/energies distinction. And as usual gave me some links.
Then this evening I simply asked “Is divine impassibility essence or energy and it replied “Divine impassibility belongs to the essence of God rather than His energies.”
That evening answer is the one I expected. But I missed out the phrase “In Orthodoxy”.
So now I’m not sure. What do you think?
A lot depends on the way you frame the question of course.
I'm not sure I'd have framed it that way but the second answer, the one you received this evening is pretty much the answer I'd have expected.
It will have given that answer without the specificity of 'in Orthodoxy' as the essence/energies distinction is associated with Orthodoxy rather than other Christian traditions.
As I've said previously, the RCs no longer seem to regard it as incompatible with 'Western' theology but haven't formed a 'dogmatic' view on the issue.
The Hopkins quote pretty much expresses how I see it in action, as it were.
God's beauty is 'past change'. God is 'beyond being'.
Yet he still reveals himself to us.
The reason I asked the question was that if, as appears, divine impassibility is thought to be an attribute of His essence, that needs to be aligned to the understanding that God’s essence is unknowable.
I accept that the two statements are not necessarily contradictory. Perhaps it is thought that God’s energies have demonstrated an impassibility which must therefore flow from His essence? That might also explain the Google contradictory answers.
The notion that God is, in essence, impassible must come from somewhere.
And that of course brings the Greek philosophers back into play.
Consider me a learner asking the questions which occur to him.
When I was received by chrismation into the Orthodox Church our priest gave a short homily/explanation in which he observed that the 'newly illumined' Gamaliel 'knew nothing, absolutely nothing, no more than a small child might', that I had L-plates on and that they'd always remain in place and how Abba Sisoes despite the protestations of his fellow monks on his death-bed said, 'I have not even begun to repent.'
Now, he didn't say this to belittle or humiliate me, but I must admit my ego grumbled and protested. Didn't he know I'd been interested in Orthodoxy for a quarter of a century, hadn't he told me when he agreed to 'receive' me that I'd 'been ready' for at least 10 years?
Yes, of course he knew that. But what he said was and is still the case.
There is no need for you to feel embarrassed.
I'll try to address your questions even though I trip over my L-plates at times.
Your first point: yes, God's eternally immutable nature - I'm trying not to use the term 'impassibility' because @Nick Tamen tells me off for using it and it's not a word I 'like' either - is a feature or attribute of his essence - his very being - ousia. As Hopkins put it, his 'beauty is past change.'
Or to return to the great hymn All My Hope On God Is Founded:
'God's great goodness aye endureth,
Deep his wisdom passing thought:
Splendour, light and life attend him,
Beauty springeth out of naught.'
Although written from within another Christian tradition that's perfectly compatible with what the Orthodox are saying.
God is beyond our ken yet makes himself known.
Whilst we don't have the capacity to understand or apprehend the immutable and ineffable and ever-living God in his 'essence' he reveals himself through his actions and 'operation' - his 'energies' - these operations are themselves eternal and uncreated and 'represent' or 'make known' how God is - ever-loving, ever-faithful, ever-true.
'For his mercies ay endure, ever faithful, ever sure.'
Now, when it comes to God's 'energies' - although they remain uncreated and eternal, they are open to inter-action as they work in and through the universe. They reach out into the cosmos. They allow human beings to truly experience and participate in God. That latter is a key point. We are not talking some kind of cerebral, academic or intellectual detachment - although our reasoning powers are fully engaged - but 'participation in the divine nature.'
Equally, there is 'on God's side' as it were, a relational dynamism. Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit being 'grieved' of being welcomed or 'quenched' by human choices. That does not 'alter' God's essential nature. A relational responsiveness does not imply that God is weak or mutable.
What it means is that his uncreated energies respond or adapt to save us, heal and restore us and commune with us mutable and erratic human beings without in anyway altering his eternal essence.
'He fathers forth whose beauty is past change.'
Am I making any sense?
As to where the idea 'comes from', the Orthodox wouldn't say that it was crudely imposed upon the Christian revelation from Greek philosophy as you appear to imply, although Christianity clearly developed within a hybrid Hebraic/Hellenistic milieu of course.
We would say it developed as the early Christians and the Fathers (and Mothers) grappled with the biblical texts (which themselves emerged out of debate, discussion, investigation, oral tradition, mission and so on) and tried to make sense of apparent paradoxes and contradictions.
For instance, if God is spirit and uncorporeal, how could Moses see his 'back'? Does this account in Exodus suggest that God can be 'known in part' as it were, whilst his essence remains incomprehensible?
And much else besides.
We don't accumulate a catalogue of proof-texts but there are of course scriptural passages that we consider key to our understanding of these issues.
Very briefly - we place a great deal of emphasis on the Transfiguration for instance - which is very much behind St Gregory Palamas's view that the light the disciples saw wasn't a created physical effect or temporary illusion but the uncreated and eternal glory and energy of the Godhead shining through Christ's human nature.
We can 'participate in the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4). This does not mean that we merge into God's substance or very essence, thereby eliding or destroying the Creator/creature distinction, but that human beings can actually and actively participate in God's uncreated energies, grace and love.
Apologies for the long post. This all takes some unpacking. We would also stress that it should be seen in an holistic way and not filleted down into unrelated chunks as it were.
In summary - no, God is not mutable or changeable in his essence - 'there is no shadow of turning with Thee' - 'I the Lord do not change' (Malachi 3:6) - and note the rest of the verse, 'therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.' But that could be a tangent or aside ...
When his 'energies' are 'released' or revealed in the world then they become apprehendable to us human beings and God responds, adapts and operates in a relationally dynamic way without in any way changing in his eternal nature.
A key point is that these 'energies' are uncreated and eternal.
God's grace and love are not 'created' forces or properties, there are part of the very fibre of his being if we can put it that way.
Put crudely, some Western concepts of grace present it as something of a 'commodity' - and I would argue that some strands of Western theology become overly 'transactional' partly due to the influence of that.
God's grace isn't something 'external' to himself but a feature of his very nature. God is Love.
I quite enjoyed that driving lesson. I'm still learning to go through the gears and 'mirror, signal, manouevre.'
And will always be doing so, but 'he gives more grace.'
I don’t have a clue how to answer that question! When it comes to essence/energies my L plates are very much on show.
Thanks, @Gamma Gamaliel . I’ll reflect. A lot there to think about.
The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.
Next question ... 😉
No, I'm not being as dismissive as that.
But you'll know the Creeds and the liturgical texts.
'Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One in essence and Undivided.'
There’s a scripture in 2 Corinthians which refers to the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ.A truth revealed.
And I will praise you Lord
And I will sing of Love come down
And as you show your face
We’ll see your glory here.
I used it on the Hidden God thread.
It is, of course, unrealistic to expect a worship song, hymn or single troparion or kontakion to cover all the bases.
But yes, all these things come into play.
Where else did it come from? I didn't come up with the idea myself ...
Teasing aside, the point I'm trying to make is that the Transfiguration is one of the main - not the only - 'salvation events' as it were in which we see truths about God revealed and exemplified.
Over on the 'Theology of the Cross' thread we've touched on how the Cross of Christ does so from both a Lutheran and Orthodox perspective - an area where there is great congruence between these two Christian traditions.
Yes, the Palamite essence/energies distinction is a specifically Orthodox way of approaching and understanding how God can both be 'unknowable' and 'knowable' at one and the same time. Other Christian traditions may approach the issue differently, and as I've said, the RCs have neither written it off nor dogmatically accepted it either, but now tend to believe that it is not incompatible with their 'Western' approach.
By and large I incline to the view that Western and Eastern Christian insights are complementary rather than incompatible or mutually exclusive, although there are clearly areas of divergence.
In going with the Big T Tradition on this one - in Orthodox terms - it doesn't mean that I am automatically excluding insights from other traditions or denying the validity of other perspectives.
It does mean though that I bring things to the bar of scripture as interpreted through Tradition, we are not sola scriptura of course.
That doesn't mean I don't question things - I find some of the 'mythos' elements in Orthodoxy hard to accept but nobody's going to boot me out on account of that.
It's something of a circular argument I know, insofar that I find the essence/energies distinction helpful in a way it may not be to those who don't share the same paradigm but who come at these things from a different direction.
@Nick Tamen doesn't find it at all helpful for instance. But there might be other aspects we both find equally helpful and nourishing and still others where he finds some Reformed emphases highly enriching whilst I might struggle to understand why that might be. And vice versa.
What unites all of us is that we all agree that God is ever-loving, faithful, gracious, good and true.
'No one has ever seen God but ...' you know the rest.
'He is the image of the invisible God ...'
God makes himself known through what he does, his actions in the world. Those actions culminate in the life, death and glorious resurrection of Christ and his coming again in glory.
The Holy and Undivided Trinity is involved in all of God's actions.
Am I missing something?
Perhaps the Feast of The Transfiguration will help.
Peace be to all and 'Happy Feast' to all who mark it on this date or however else.