Matthew C. Steenberg

Introduction.

In his long tome on natural and theological science, St. Gregory Palamas wrote, "If we have conformed ourselves to God and have attained that for which we are created, namely deification [·] then we are in God [·] and God is in us, since it is He who deifies us. Thus we, too, participate in the divine energy."

Palamas may be considered a "modern" only in a purely chronological sense. In all matters theological and philosophical, he was but a manifest extension of the teachings of the early Church Fathers÷passionately and whole-heartedly embracing all that they taught and wrote, and bringing their insights into the forefront of the thought of his day. And it was in his day that precisely these views were in need of redress; for the spiritual teachings of the Church were under as strong a philosophical attack as they had ever been in their 1300 year history, and needed defense.

Under fire was the entire notion of monastic spirituality, centered upon its attempts at the deification of those who would follow its path. To its attackers, deification seemed heretical, blasphemous, and if nothing else, wholly impossible. Yet the Athonite fathers would cling fervently to this teaching; later to become doctrinally cemented as a centerpiece of the Orthodox faith.

The doctrine of deification is of significant importance as well to all those who cling to that faith in the modern world of today. For it is, thanks in great part to the efforts of men such as Gregory, universally understood as a doctrinal "focal point" of Orthodox spirituality. Here one finds the meaning and purpose of life as it is seen by the Christian East; and here, too, those who partake of that Christian faith find the centerpiece of their spiritual endeavors.

In this paper I shall briefly trace the origins and history of Orthodox Christian spirituality, noting particularly major milestones in its development through time. Then, in the paperâs second part, I shall deal at greater length with the doctrine of deification, chiefly as it is presented by St. Gregory Palamas, itâs greatest defender.

But before beginning, a few general words about deification must be said, in order that the materials leading up to its further clarification may have some foundation.

Religious "experience" is a subject of considerable controversy in the modern age. There is a general air of mistrust in the West about any phenomenon that claims to put its participants in direct contact with the Divine, whatever that Divine is understood to be. In an age of scientific fortitude and a reliance on only those things which are empirically verifiable, the claims of a solemn individual to any personal experience with ultimate reality run against the accepted grain of reliability.

Within the world of Christendom, this uneasiness with experience takes on further complications. There are divided strands within Christianity as to the viability of personal encounter. The majority of contemporary Roman Catholics and liturgical Protestants are wont to stress it on any notable level, though are not so bold as to deny outright the possibility of such experience. The more evangelical and charismatic strands within Protestantism, however, seem to push the notion of personal encounter almost to its breaking point; often seeming to stress this aspect the faith to such an extent that others÷such as scripture and sacrament÷are drastically minimized.

Yet within the modern, contemporary, Western Church as a whole, a certain globalization regarding personal encounter may safely be made: rarely, if ever, does any form of accepted encounter claim to unite the person to God in a real way; to allow them to participate in the very divinity of the Trinity. Whether the subject be Roman Catholic or Protestant, an examination of accepted mystical experience tends to find it limited to feelings of closeness, moments of deep love, passionate rapture, and the like.

Yet this notion of union goes beyond the simple analogy of two beings coming closer to one another. In its fullest and purest sense, this spiritual union÷this transformation from life into Life÷affects a genuine participation of the human nature with the energies of God. What has become unholy through misuse and passion-driven enslavement is restored to its true nature, and thus once more able to participate in the divine mysteries. In this sense, the profane is made holy; the lost and solitary human person is united and joined to the Holy God and partakes of Godâs divinity, which shines forth like rays from the sun; or, to use Palamasâ fond metaphor, a "wellspring of light." This is the sense of union that is captured in the term "deification," which literally means "to become godlike," or even "to become God." It is the doctrine which expounds the words spoken by the apostle Peter in his second letter from Rome: "His divine power has given to us all things [·] that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3,4).

The details of this doctrine of deification will be addressed in the second part of this paper. For now, this general introduction will serve as a reference point, with an eye toward which we will examine the development of Orthodox spirituality in general through the course of history.

A clear picture of the doctrinal beliefs on spirituality in the East can be best gathered from an overview of the writings of the Church Fathers. As is the course with any theological concept, a clearly defined exposition of mysticism developed gradually, over time, through the pens of many different authors. Yet it is important to note (perhaps far more than is commonly done) that none of these fathers and doctors of the East ever believed themselves to be introducing anything new to the theological content of the Christian Church. They believed themselves only to be expounding the tenants of the ancient faith÷clarifying and exploring what had always been believed, but not hitherto addressed in written theological texts.

Space limitations prevent a thorough overview of the Greek Fathers from being presented here÷for they were extremely voluminous in their writings on the topic of spirituality and the mystical life. Yet a general understanding of the development of these topics can be gained from an examination of four Fathers who stand out as prime Îmilestonesâ of contemplative exposition through the course of history: St. Evagrios of Pontikos, St. John Klimakos, St. Maximos (called "The Confessor"), and St. Gregory Palamas. This small collection of men represents a broad synthesis of the spiritual/mystical tradition of the Christian East, spanning from the first centuries after Christ to the mid-14^th century. Moreover, it demonstrates an evolution of self-understanding within the Eastern mystical tradition; from its birthing stages in Evagrian neoplatonism, to its pinnacle of exposition in the Palamite defense of deification.

* * * * *

Evagrios Pontikos, also known as "Evagrios the Solitary," appeared on the patristic scene early enough that relatively little of his personal history is known. Yet what is available reveals much about his character. He was born in 345 or 346 in Ibora, Pontus, the son of a bishop (for at this point in history, the episcopacy had not yet been restricted to the monastics), and member of a rather well-to-do family. He spent his younger life as a disciple of the Cappadocian Fathers, being ordained a reader by St. Basil the Great, and a deacon by St. Gregory of Nazianzos ("The Theologian"). This latter he accompanied to the first council in Constantinople (the second Ecumenical Council) in 381. Presented with the heated political sphere of the capital, Evagrios demonstrated a natural flair for theological discourse. During and after the council, he achieved a distinguished reputation for his ability to debate issues of the faith, especially against the heretical claims of outside attackers.

Yet Evagrios soon stepped away from the noisy arena of political and theological debate, and left for Jerusalem. A short time later, he moved to Egypt and was tonsured a monk in an Origenist community in Nitria. He remained there only two short years before departing to live the life of a hermit in the remote desert of Kellia, where he remained until his death in 399.

Evagrios was one of the first to commit to writing the spiritual traditions of the East. His years as a hermit-monk in Egypt brought him into direct contact with the Desert Fathers; the first monks of the Christian world. Through them he was exposed to the heart of the spirituality prevalent in the early Church, as it was lived out by the most severe of ascetics. To his learning in these matters, he added a mastery of the Platonic philosophical parlance of his day, which he had cultivated during his years in the "outside world." Through this linguistic tool, in turn, he made it his task to present in writing the spiritual teachings of the early Church. Thus his texts quickly came to be regarded as summaries of the spiritual thought of his day.

As compelling as Evagriosâ argument may at first appear, it is clear that it quite sharply contradicts the foundational teachings of the Eastern Church in several respects. Most significantly opposed to the patristic teachings is his denial of the active role of the human body in true prayer. To Evagrios, as to the neoplatonists, the body (and in fact, all physical matter) was merely an encumbrance to the spiritual way; the goal was to overcome it÷to allow the soul to "rise above" its material cage. His asceticism was one which served not to realign the body, but to defeat it. Such a view stood in opposition to the patristic belief that the soul and body are intimately united; both working together in life, and both being redeemed together through the gift of salvation. Evagrios speaks to a view which proclaims precisely the opposite of this understanding. In this regard, his neoplatonist and Origenist connections prevailed in his writings, and for them he was posthumously condemned by the second council in Constantinople (the fifth Ecumenical Council) in 553.

Yet Evagrios set the stage for much of what was to come in later expositions of Orthodox spirituality. He provided compelling proofs for the necessity of asceticism, which would later be taken up by other writers and molded into conformity with the teachings of the Church. In addition, he was one of the first writers to speak of prayer as union with God; a theme which would become immensely important in later years, as we shall see. Still, his writings are a mixture of insight and "Origenist heresy," and thus present a somewhat diluted representation of early Orthodox spiritual beliefs. John Meyendorff has convincingly argued that Evagriosâ most lasting contribution to Eastern spirituality was not so much his collection of theological insights, but rather the use of language, which he fine-tuned in order to clearly express his metaphysical observations. This language later became the standard mode of theological discourse, both Eastern and Western. Still, it was not until John Klimakos wrote "The Ladder," one of the first extant compendiums of Eastern monastic life, that the more orthodox views of the Church were clearly recorded.

John Klimakos was born in 579 or 580, and this is nearly all that can be discovered of his early life. It is known that he was tonsured a monk at St. Catherineâs monastery on Sinai around 595, at the age of 16. He lived in the cenobite community for some years, until retreating into the desert at age 35 to live the solitary life of a hermit. At some point÷and the dates here are unknown÷he returned to the community to become abbot of the monastery; a position which he held until his death, sometime around 649.

There is an important distinction between Klimakosâ asceticism and that of Evagrios: while the latter attempted to overcome the physical matter of the body altogether, Klimakosâ asceticism attempts to realign it. From a state of physical as well as mental enslavement to the passions, an ascetic life turns the monk toward a good and proper use of both his body and mind, which together are components of the holistic soul.

One encounters in this text a view of the body, not as something evil in and of itself, but evil only in its misuse and enslavement to worldly passions. What is "defiled," then, stands ready to be cleansed and made use of in a proper, beneficial manner. One of the most important aspects of Klimakosâ work is his insistence (and he was one of the first to insist it) that the physical body, properly controlled, itself plays an important role in prayer. Indeed, the union of the person with God in the highest stages of prayer is not simply a union of the mind, but of the mind, soul, and body as a composite whole.

Such a quieting allowed the purification of the heart through its release from the bonds of worldly passions. The heart and intellect thus liberated, and the body duly tamed, the human person was then able to become aware of its divine nature as a vessel of God, and attain union with the divinity. In this union, the person of the human was made holy by divine grace, and indwelt with the presence of God himself. As Klimakos wrote: "The hesychast is one who aspires to circumscribe the Incorporeal in a dwelling of flesh." This circumscription could only occur when the body, calmed of its passions, and the soul, quieted from its wanderings, allowed the movements of God within the human person to be recognized, embraced, and participated in.

Hesychast spirituality would not reach its clearest definition until the time of Gregory Palamas, some 700 years later. Yet its roots begin to be clearly seen here, in the writings of St. John Klimakos and his contemporaries.

St. Maximos, a contemporary of John Klimakos, was born in 580 in Constantinople, the son of a prominent aristocrat. From his earliest youth he received an elaborate education, being trained by the best teachers society had to offer. He later became first-secretary to the Byzantine emperor, Heraklios, establishing himself as "clearly belonging to the upper levels of his society."

But Maximos was not to stay in this position of cultural power for long. Only three years after accepting his secretarial position (c.614), he resigned from public life all together and became a monk at the monastery of Philippikos in Chrysopolis. He later moved to the monastery of St. George Syzikos, but was forced to flee to Crete in 626 upon invasion of the Persians. From Crete he went to Egypt, where he would live a good portion of his life, playing a definitive role in the defense of the Church against the heresies of monoenergism and monotheletism.

In 653 he was arrested by Emperor Constans II, himself an avid supporter of the monoenergistic doctrines. There was a brief show of a trial, at the conclusion of which Maximos was sentenced to exile in Bizya, Thrace. In addition, at the conclusion of his final trial in 662, his tongue and right-hand÷the two means by which he "confessed" the ancient faith which the emperor opposed÷were cut off. Maximos eventually died in exile on 13 August, 662.

Maximos the Confessor is frequently termed the "spiritual theologian," for it was he who was the first÷and principle÷exponent of proper Eastern spirituality in the neoplatonic language of current theology. By his time, there had developed two independent "schools" in the Christian world: that of the spiritualists, and that of the theologians and philosophers. While they had originally begun as one, the writings of certain individuals (such as Evagrios) had led a substantial portion of the Christian population to believe that neoplatonism was simply incompatible with all things spiritual. Consequently, it was abandoned by most spiritual writers in favor of other modes of written communication. Yet the very same philosophical model abandoned by the spiritualists was retained by the doctrinal theologians, whose constant encounter with the world of philosophical thought required them to use the neoplatonic parlance of the age. It was the crowning achievement of Maximos, then, to take the maturing spirituality of Klimakos and others, and present it in the neoplatonic language of the "theological world."

Maximos once again embraced the three stages of spiritual growth, yet rid them of the immateriality of Evagrios.

His revision adapted the original model to a Christian understanding of human nature: Asceticism enables the Christian to overcome the enslaving grip of the passions, providing a physical and mental stillness which allows the intellect to function more freely. When it is so freed, the intellect proceeds to contemplate the nature of created things: the world, manifest beings, and eventually itself (the human person). It is in this latter arena÷when the intellect contemplates its own human nature÷that it is enlightened, through the grace of God, to its own divine nature; it was created by God in the image of God, it is held together by God, and it is indwelt by God. It comes to the realization that the very "stuff" of humanity is the stuff of God; and when this is understood, it is able to reach union with God.

This full union transfigures the person, illuminating him or her with the "uncreated light" of Tabor÷the very light the disciples saw on Mt. Tabor at Jesusâ transfiguration. It is this light, this real and visible manifestation of the uncreated energies of God, that is the true nature of humankind. To St. Maximos, the life of the ascetic (and he is careful to point out that one need not necessarily be a monastic to be an ascetic) is one of submission and purification, which prepares the individual for sanctification into his or her own true self. This sanctification is always wrought by God, yet only takes hold upon those who are willing to work towards the call and respond. When it does take hold÷when the ascetic reaches the stages of inner illumination and union with the Trinity÷it radically transforms their lives from earthly to divine:

This is the essential theology behind the doctrine of deification: ascetic contemplation leads to an awareness of the indwelling energies of God in His wholeness, which in turn leads to a unification with the divine energies by participation, and thus a deification of the human nature. This was to become÷and to remain÷the central idea behind all of Eastern Christian spirituality.

Over the next several hundred years, Christian spirituality continued to develop and advance in its definition, building upon the foundation of these writers and others. Meanwhile, other important events in the history of Christianity occurred: In 1054, the Church split between East and West. In response to the split, the Church in the East felt the need to clarify its doctrine and dogma, that it might be able to clearly elucidate its beliefs when challenged by the ever-increasing number of new opponents. More formal statements of belief were necessary, and leading up to their creation was an analysis of the life of the Christian faithful in the East. When that analysis reached those of the spiritual tradition, there arose conflict. The spiritual tradition was seen by many of the more philosophical persuasion as problematic: it implied that a material being (a human) could have direct contact with the immaterial (God). Such was not at all in-line with the philosophical views of the day, which were of much prominence in the Christian world. A division began to arise between the "spiritualists" and the "Church."

It was to this precise division that Gregory Palamas addressed his life and his writings. Considered by many Easterners to be the greatest exponent of Orthodox spirituality of all time, Palamas took as his task the reconciliation and integration of the spirituality of the monastics with the communal life of the Church.

Gregory Palamas was born in 1296 in Constantinople, and like Maximos was born of noble parents. His family shared a close tie with the Byzantine emperor, Andronicus II Paleologus. Andronicus was, in John Meyendorffâs words, "the most religious of the late Byzantine rulers," and submitted faithfully to Patriarch Athanasius I of Constantinople. He was also a prominent scholar, well versed in philosophy÷especially that of Aristotle÷and encouraged education among his subjects. Thus Gregory received a royal secular education, dwelling primarily upon Aristotelian philosophy and the politics of his day.

In 1316, at the age of 19 or 20, Gregory left Constantinople for Mt. Athos, and there became a monk. He adopted the semi-eremitic way of life; living in a small kelyva near the monastery of Vatopedi. Three years later he moved to a hermitage outside of the Great Lavra (the highest-ranking monastery of the Athonite state) called St. Sabbas, which was to remain his home as long as he was on Athos.

Around 1325, the ongoing raids of Turkish pirates into the Athonite monasteries prompted Gregory, and a substantial collection of followers, to leave the Holy Mountain for Thessalonika. There he stayed for several years, living as part of a semi-monastic community under the leadership of Isidore, the future patriarch of Constantinople. He was ordained a priest at the age of 30, and founded a small hermitage near the city of Berrhoea. It was here that he developed his pattern of living which was to become so popular among the semi-eremitic hesychasts: five days in complete isolation, cultivating and practicing the Jesus Prayer, with Saturday and Sunday spent in the liturgical life of the community; attending the divine services and conversing with fellow monastics.

In 1331, Serbian raids in Berrhoea prompted Gregoryâs departure, and he once again returned to St. Sabbas on Mt. Athos. Here he continued his hesychast lifestyle, interrupted for a short time when he was appointed interim abbot of Esphigmenou. Yet his solitude lasted for only a few short years. In 1335-36, he became embroiled in the Hesychast Controversy on Athos, which shall be examined further in the second section of this paper. His involvement in that affair forced him to leave the Holy Mountain once again, moving to the capital to defend the monks. He was later made archbishop of Thessalonika (1347), and died in 1359. He was canonized only nine years later.

Palamas represents the epitome of hesychasm. Herein he found the "way of stillness" that leads to pure prayer and ultimate contemplation of God and creation. Even in his day, nearly a thousand years after hesychasm first began to take dogmatic form in the writings of the Desert Fathers, its tenants remained relatively unchanged: It was the path of stillness, by which entrance into oneâs soul was gained. It invited quietude and calm, reflection and the constant invocation of the name of Christ; and through these calmed the "raging of the passions." In this state of dispassion÷reminiscent of the apatheia of Evagrios÷the soul was prepared to receive and embrace the workings of the grace of God, and thereby to attain the deification of true prayer.

Palamas did much to tear down the false distinction between Church and spirituality. In his eyes, the Church was the divinely-instituted path toward theosis. Through the mysteries of the sacraments, human beings participate in divine Truth among community; for Palamas saw communal life as a perfectly valid÷indeed necessary÷avenue for mystical existence. Through this communal encounter with truth, the individual grows in his or her own personal spirituality, fostering the deific aspect of his or her life. The movements of the individual and those of the community are different sides of the same coin; both unique, yet each impossible without the other.

* * * * *

We see in these four authors the gradual development of spirituality as understood by the East. Beginning its clearly defined form as a movement of certain hermits in Egypt, this spirituality was eventually to become÷in the time of Gregory Palamas÷the very center of Eastern theology. The spiritual doctrine of deification is to this day the core of the Eastern understanding of what it means to be human: the mystical life is one that all people live, whether conscious of it or not. When conscious of it, they are able to actualize their true natures, and are deified into their true selves.

We have traced, via the most brief of overviews, the development of contemplative spirituality in the Christian East as it is recorded by the Church Fathers through the centuries. This has been done in order to set a basic framework upon which a closer look at the notion of deification may be performed. Let us now turn to that task.

It is immediately apparent through a patristic survey, such as ours above, that the theme of deification has been of issue since the earliest days. Even in Evagriosâ non-Christocentric and dualistic Platonism, the idea of a personal participation in something greater than the self is encountered÷and this is the basic foundation for any doctrine of theosis; a type of participation in the divine.

What is mean by this "participation"? It is here that the passage of time was necessary in order to obtain a clear answer in the patristic texts. Early fathers such as Evagrios wrote only of the intellectual appropriation of the individual to the great Mind of God; yet it is quite apparent that even this was only one aspect of the early Churchâs understanding of deification. The mind was certainly illumined and able to contemplate better, greater things÷yet this was not the extent of it. A truly deified person experienced a participatory union with God not only on the mental, but also the physical level.

One can see this notion clearly put forth in the writings of Nikitas Stithatos, a contemporary of St. Symeon the New Theologian (born c.1020). Speaking of the deified individual, he wrote:

He speaks not of a purely intellectual experience÷though the intellect is certainly involved÷but of a transformitive union with the divine godhead. The entire being of the believer is involved; both mind and body. This is especially clear when one examines the context in which this comment was made: a discussion on the bodily participation of the faithful with the divinity of Christ through the Eucharistic meal. In the holy mystery of the Eucharist, the ultimate unitive experience is attained; not by a mere mental exercise, but by the movements of grace through the whole essence and being of the communicant and the substance of the sacrament.

Still, what precisely is meant by this union? In claiming a genuine and bodily participation with the divine, what does the doctrine of deification profess to be the nature and character of this transformation?

Without question, the harshest criticism that would ever by faced by the doctrine and its proponents was the claim the deification purported to unify the human believer to the nature of God÷to his very essence. This criticism first began to be vocalized in the late tenth and eleventh centuries by certain brands of philosophers (mostly Platonists) who saw an apparent discrepancy in the spiritualist claims: How could a material being come into union with the immaterial? How could the created creature be unified with the uncreated Creator? These were at first minor questions, posed by a small minority of the particularly curious. Yet as the authority of philosophical dialog grew in the first centuries of the new millennium, this criticism also grew ever stronger.

The upset reached its climax at the beginning of the 14th century, in what is commonly referred to as the "Hesychast Controversy." Centered around the spiritual life of the hesychast monastics on Mt. Athos, the controversy began with a charge that the light seen by the hesychasts during contemplative prayer was not the uncreated light of Tabor, as the monks claimed, but rather a created and physical illumination. This attack on Athonite spirituality was brought before St. Gregory Palamas÷at that time a Monk on the Holy Mountain÷by Barlaam, a Calabrian philosopher. Palamas responded to the charge with a defense of the perception of uncreated light, but while he was engaged in this defense the controversy raged on and more opponents of deification, and even of greater monastic spirituality in general, began to raise their voices. To the minds of those on Athos, the events of the era demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the spiritual beliefs of the Orthodox monastics; a misunderstanding that the patristic texts of the Church had neither predicted nor seemed eminently capable of assuaging on their own. There was a need for the standpoint of the monks to be clarified, and the ancient beliefs of the Church explained in light of the new attacks against them.

It was Palamas who became the spokesman for Athos and its inhabitants÷and indeed for the whole of Orthodox spirituality. Leaving the solitude of Athos, he spent 14 years defending the faith through writing and speech, until the doctrines he upheld were reaffirmed by two councils in Constantinople (1347, 1351), remaining ever since the official position of the Church.

Gregoryâs writings are extensive, and often deeply complex. Yet it is in these writings that the clearest definition of what deification is÷and perhaps more dramatically, what it is not÷can be found. In particular, Gregory is noted for his precise clarification of the distinction between the essence and energies of God. This distinction was not new (it had been proclaimed for centuries by fathers such as Maximos and Basil), but it was the clarity with which Gregory presented it that was to make his writings so influential, both in his lifetime and after.

This essence/energy distinction was to provide the means by which the doctrine of deification was defended during the hesychast controversy. Even to the modern day, it is the distinction by which much that is confounding to an outside investigator of Eastern spirituality can be explained; including the common misconceptions that deification allows a person to somehow be transformed into the very nature of God, that deification allows the human person to see the un-seeable, and that a doctrine of deification somehow "dilutes" the divinity of the Godhead by claiming that it is humanely participable. These claims, and others like them, all rely on a confusion of essence and energy, and how deification pertains to each.

To assist in understanding the fundamental distinction between a thingâs essence and its energies, one may take as a model the readily observable example of the sun. The sun has a unique nature that is its own, and belongs to nothing other than the sun itself: It is a gaseous, atomic sphere made up of specific compounds engaged in a specific chain of reactions. This is its distinction, its nature; the very thing which makes it the sun, and which no other object or thing has a part in. This, by way of metaphor, is the sunâs essence.

Yet the sun also possesses certain attributes which one cannot claim are aspects of its nature as such. Radiating from the sun is heat; emanating from it are rays of light÷yet neither these rays of heat or light are part of the sunâs nature. They are, rather, manifestations of the sun in the universe: its energies. The distinction between these two substances is quite apparent in our model: the light which falls upon the earth as the sun rises is not part of the sunâs unique essence, but rather an actualization of the sunâs energies. Still, these energies are not distinct from the sun; for without it, they would cease to be. In this sense they are an aspect of what the sun is, though they do not constitute the foundational nature of the sun itself.

Palamas relates the above model to an understanding of the essence and energies of God:

When one stands in the light of the sun, and absorbs that light and heat into his or her person, one can be accurately termed as participating in the energies of the sun. The sun which gives warmth, warms the individual, who has the possibility of then bestowing that warmth upon yet something else in turn. Thus warmth, an energy manifest from the sunâs very being, is enjoined by participation onto a human person (or, for that matter, a rock, or a strip of pavement).

Somewhat similar÷though greatly hindered in comparison through the inadequacy of metaphor÷is the state of things with God. Palamas describes the energies of God as "processions, manifestations, and natural operations of the one Spirit," wrought into the created world through the grace of the Creator. And it is in these energies that humanity is able to participate, should the individual be prepared to do so. Here is found the crux of deification, the very center of the doctrine: Deification is the participation and union of the human individual with the energies of God, not the essence.

One sees quite readily the similarity of this notion of deification to the divine energies, and our previous model of oneâs participation in the sunâs energies. Just as through the sunâs radiation one can properly be said to participate in the energies of the sun, so through Godâs grace, Palamas argues, can one properly be said to participate in the energies of the divinity.

But does this energy-participation then constitute a participation of the individual in the essence of God?

Gregory firmly upheld the Churchâs ancient belief that the essence of the One God is unique unto itself, and not shared by any created thing. The doctrine of deification was never one of becoming likened unto God with respect to nature, but with respect to energy, manifested through grace. To participate in the essence of God would necessitate that one be God, as the divine essence÷that which is the very being of God÷would be shared.

Gregory goes to great lengths to ensure a proper understanding of the absolute im-participability of Godâs essence; for it was this very claim that many of the most vocal opponents of hesychast spirituality were making in their charges against the monastics. Accusing them of reconstituting the claims of the Messalians, Gregory examines the faulty logic behind any claims to participation in the divine essence:

And again:

Thus the Athonite-Palamite witness to the nature of deification is clearly that it does not invite a union between created humanity and the essential nature of the deity. For the human person, God is approachable only through his energistic nature, and it is this approach which drives the human side of theosis.

The question occasionally raised at this point is, in what sense does the term "deification"÷to become God÷then apply to this process of participation in Godâs energies? For one would hardly claim that he who participates in the warmth of the sun is thereby in some manner become the sun. How so, then, with theosis?

Again, much depends on an understanding of the notions underlying the term deification. The immediate reaction evoked by such a title, especially by those unfamiliar with the Orthodox tradition, tends to be rather negative. "Is there not something deeply heretical in claiming to be a part of God? Doesnât one expand the Trinity ad infinitum?" Here again, though, we see a confusion of essence and energy. For if one were to claim an essential union with God through deification, one would most certainly fall into the heresy of the Messalians. Indeed, argues Gregory, that person would imply a plurality in God which does not exist; both dividing and adding to the unchanging nature of the Holy Trinity:

Yet an energistic participation and union with God does not imply such a plurality, for one is not unified with the unapproachable essence of the divinity, but rather with his manifest energies. They key lies herein: these energies, though not the essence of God, are merged with the essence of man, and it is here at the deific process takes firm root. What is Godâs energy becomes manâs essence, and inasmuch as this is true, that man is enjoined to the manifestations of God in creation. The human person "becomes God" by participation, in the sense that Godâs energies become the essence of the person; are wholly united and merged into the personâs self, and become the personâs very nature and life.

Thus far I have been primarily concerned with the dogmatic character of the doctrine of deification; what are its basic claims and assertions, and what were its defenses to the differing philosophical attacks of the early 14^th century. Yet any discussion of this central spiritual theme would be remiss if it did not address÷even if only in some small manner÷the actualization of this doctrine in the spiritual life of the individual. Where and how does the doctrine become realized in the person of faith? Apart from its dogmatic expositions, what actually happens to the Christian who is engaged in the process of deification, and what must he or she do to bring about these happenings?

These questions have been answered in numerous ways, by numerous writers. Indeed, the great diversity of response to questions of personable experience is a strong indicator of the many and varied forms taken by Orthodox spirituality throughout time. It would certainly be desirable to explore those in more detail here. However, space concerns will limit my discussion primarily to the continued views of Gregory Palamas, as it is with his works that the preceding portions of this paper have been principally concerned.

In commenting on an individualâs path toward deification, Palamas unhesitatingly asserts two important requirements: (1.) the person must have received the new life of baptism, and (2.) the person must be a partaker of the holy mysteries (sacraments) of the Church; most importantly, the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Of absolute necessity to a deified existence is the new life granted unto an individual through the Christian initiation of baptism. It is in this solemn mystery of the Church that the individual is delivered from the original corruption through entrance into a redeemed life through Christ. To use Palamasâ own axiom, it is through baptism that the human person is made holy, by being united to the source of holiness.

Without the restoration to holiness offered in the mystery of baptism, all Îeffortsâ toward personal deification are ultimately for naught. For deification itself is a realization of the redeemed state of humanity, united wholly unto God. Without the individualâs sacramental enjoining to the kingdom of which this God is Lord and king, Palamas sees no basis for deification whatsoever. It is an attempt to become a full citizen of a nation which one has never entered. Before fullness can ever be realized, entrance must be made.

Second in Palamasâ list is the mystery of the Eucharist. Again we see his strict adherence to a belief that spirituality apart from sacramentality is fundamentally impossible. If one removes oneself from the Churchâs sacramental life÷especially from the Eucharist÷one bars oneâs own way toward deification; for the life and presence of God, the life which deification ultimately moves to impart upon and within the believer, is found most wholly in the mystery of the sacraments.

And again, from the Triads:

Through the Eucharist the Îhypostasisâ of each believer is admitted into direct union with the physical and spiritual presence of Christ. The divine and the natural are commingled in the human person, and the individual is united directly to the God of the sacrament. Is this not the very aim of deification? To the mind of Gregory and the fathers, as well as to the Church of today, there can be no great distinction drawn between the individualâs path toward deification and his or her partaking of the holy Eucharist. Each is an aspect of÷if not the very essence of÷the other.

Thus participation in the sacramental life of the Church is of pivotal importance to the believer seeking to live a deified existence. Essential also is a life of prayer. Never to be ignored in Orthodox spirituality is the union of soul and body in the human person, nor the care that must be afforded each. The sacraments provide the very source of life upon which all else rests; but built upon these must be a tempering and focusing of the soul through prayer÷securely laying claim to the life and grace granted in the holy mysteries, and establishing them as the center of the individualâs whole person.

With respect to prayer, Gregory may be seen as an unequivocal supporter of hesychasm. Himself leading a hesychast life on Athos and elsewhere, he never wavered in his proclamation of hesychast spirituality as an intensely beneficial method by which the individual might attain a life of true prayer. Adopting and expounding the full force of the tradition, including its psycho-somatic techniques and ascetic foundations, Gregory saw in the hesychast life a road toward the proper control and use of both mind and body÷a road which led the whole person of the believer into a state of readiness before God. In that readiness, the individual opened himself to the grace of the Trinity, and thus to a deification of life.

Gregory was quite clear on an oft-ignored point: hesychasm itself is not the end of mystical spirituality, but rather a means by which that end is approached. Meyendorff writes, "Palamas [·] makes plain his desire to see the practice of hesychasm as a means, not the very end of the mystical life," and it is important to note the implications of this statement: To deny hesychasm as the ultimate destination of deification is to deny÷as Palamas often did÷that theosis is ultimately achieved by the works of the human person. It is to assert, however, that those works are the synergistic cooperation of the individual with the workings of God, whose grace it is that always fulfills the realization of deification.

The "conflict" of faith and works, so common in the theological discussions of today, posed no difficulty for Gregory. To him and the whole of the Eastern Fathers, it was never a question of faith or works, but a necessity of faith and works. Godâs part in humankindâs salvation is always the principle; always the means by which salvation and sanctification truly occur. But the actualization of Godâs grace in the human person cannot be achieved without a participation÷a true synergy, to adopt the terminology of Meyendorff÷of both God and man.

Thus Gregory viewed the life of the hesychast is a means by which humankindâs "part" in this synergy might be carried out. It is the life of true prayer which opens the individual up to the workings of Godâs grace; and it is that grace, and not the hesychasm itself, which deifies a man. St. Maximos wrote:

This divinization of soul and body through a sacramental existence and a life of prayer is the fruit of a deified life. Godâs grace and humanityâs cooperation in the ascetical efforts of the Christian life lead to the true and real theosis of that life: the mind is purified, the body cleansed, the soul united to God. The sub-human existence which the world calls "normal" is lifted up to its true potential and sanctified; man is made truly Man.

The manifestation of this deification in the world has taken many forms throughout history, and it would be an interesting study indeed that laid side-by-side those numerous accounts and witnesses that have been passed down through antiquity. Among the many similarities that those accounts would certainly share would be the theme of light, for nearly all Orthodox reports of manifest deification possess this common trait. God is light, and when a human person is deified into God, that light÷an uncreated energy of God÷breaks forth from them just as it did in Jesus upon Mt. Tabor. The energy of God so fills the human person that they radiate with it in the same way that God himself radiates his energies; they "point" to God not as something far away and distant, but as something here, present, active in the world÷in their very person.

The modern era has produced its own witnesses of these things, and the most notable of those is certainly found in the person of St. Seraphim of Sarov. A hermit-monk from the central Russian woodlands, Seraphim was considered even in his own day to be an exceptionally holy and righteous man, well advanced in a life of prayer. So great was his renown that a student, Nicholas Motovilov, made a "pilgrimage" to the elderâs hermitage in order to meet with him and discuss spiritual things. During that meeting, Motovilov records in his journal, Seraphim and he were both visibly deified by the grace of God. The heart of his vision is summarized in his own words:

The light which Nicholas observed in Seraphim was, according to the Orthodox understanding of life and spirituality, the very uncreated energy of God which is always manifesting itself in creation; here having become so deeply and purely the essence of the saint that his being and that of God were mingled together in a visible fashion. The moment of bodily transfiguration was not one of alienation or escape from the human faculties and perceptions÷worthy of note is the fact that both Motovilov and Seraphim remained quite cogent and perceptive through the whole experience÷but rather of a fulfillment of these same things through their culmination in Godâs grace. The human senses were once again able to fulfill their true purpose: to allow humanity to sense God. The mind was enlightened and fulfilled once more its created purpose: to offer humanity a conduit to know God. Even the physical matter of the human body was transfigured, allowed once again to fulfill its created nature as a conduit and manifestation of Godâs grace.

Beginning with the mystery of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist, and brought to life in the individual through a devotion and dedication to prayer, deification finds its culmination in this real, physical, spiritual transformation of the human person out of darkness and into the light. As Orthodoxy has matured in its written dogmatics and patristic volumes, this simple theme has ever remained constant. It is seen today, as it has been seen for millennia, as the fulfillment and culmination of human life; the reality of the Kingdom of God made manifest in the world.

In closing, a few short words on the title of this paper. It might first appear that the notion of "becoming God" and that of restoring humanity are radically different÷perhaps even opposed to one another. Yet it is not by accident that I place them together, side by side in this short paper. For it is the universal witness of the Church, of the Fathers and the Saints, of the theologians and writers, that these two notions÷disparate as they may seem÷are in truth one and the same.

Deification is properly the union of the individual with God; the participation of the natural in the divine. It is salvation brought to life in the actual sanctification of the human person. It is life turned into Life, darkness transformed into light. In the sense that the Church Fathers spoke of it, deification holds true to its name: the transformation of an earthly existence into a divine life.

Yet it is also a transformation into a human life÷the human life that was established as the purpose and destiny of mankind. As Palamas and the other fathers saw it÷as the Church has always seen it÷there is nothing supra-human about the doctrine of deification. It does not call humanity to be anything more than it was created to be. Instead, it works to restore that creation to its fullest sense. The sub-human existence which the world calls "natural" and which sin strives to maintain is stripped away through the journey called deification. The enslaving chains with which humanity holds itself back from its true Self are loosened, and the individual is freed to become what he or she was always meant to be: a full and complete person, in the real scope of the word.

Deification is a return of the person to God, yet it is also a return of the person to himself. The Orthodox Church has never professed the nature of man to be corrupt in essence or form; only lost to its true identity and enslaved to false notions of truth, self, and God. It is through deification that this illusory enslavement is overcome; that "what once was lost is found," and what had fallen away from reality is restored.

In its largest sense, the spirituality of the East sees all of life÷if one is truly living life÷as the pathway through the journey of deification. Every moment of every day is an opportunity for the divine ascent of humanity into God to take form and mature. Every breath one takes, every thought one thinks is a chance for spiritual growth and development. Each movement of the human person is a movement in which the grace of God can be felt, seen, absorbed, and embraced. As Fr. Alexander Schmemman often wrote: in every day, in every place the life of God may become the "life of the world." When this is realized÷when within the human person God is allowed to become the essence and fulfillment of life÷then life truly begins. It is this process of transformation that is the human struggle, and the human blessing; both holy task and holy gift. It is the fullness of life and the restoration of all things lost. Indeed, it is the restoration of humanity itself.