Theosis, East and West

A couple of weeks ago, at our parish's online faith formation meeting, we read the Melkite leaflet titled “Made in His Image” which introduces the idea of theosis: At creation, man was made in the image and likeness of God, but at the fall, human nature was wounded by sin in an intractable way. With the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, not only was sin defeated and our nature healed from its disease but, the baptized faithful are now called to gradually conform themselves to Christ, to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48), and to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4).  Having brought our human nature to the Father and thus “joined the things of Heaven with those of earth” (Kondakion of the Ascension), and having sent his Holy Spirit to dwell in us, Christ has not simply restored us to the pre-lapsarian state of grace of the Garden of Eden but has made us capable of fully participating in the life of the Holy Trinity. 

Now, there's a common perception that theosis is unique to Byzantine theology. In so far as the term refers to what I have just outlined, that would be wrong. Theosis is not a  specifically Eastern belief, although it may be referred to in the Latin Church as deification or simply sanctification. However, it is probably true that theosis has received a greater emphasis in Eastern theological circles, in the aftermath of the fourteenth century disputes between Eastern and Western theologians regarding hesychasm, Palamism, the “essence-energy distinction,” the value of the Jesus prayer, etc. Even though those theological controversies seem to have waned a great deal in the last hundred years or so, the emphasis on theosis remains a mark of distinction for many Eastern Christians living in the West (*).

In his book Deification Through the Cross, Fr. Khaled Anatolios, a Melkite priest and theologian at Notre Dame University, mentions another alleged contrast between East and West concerning the work done by Christ for our sanctification. Accordingly, one may frequently hear accusations made not only by some Eastern Orthodox, but by Eastern Catholics as well (no doubt under the influence of Eastern Orthodox voices), that the Latin understanding of salvation is “legalistic” and based on a penal view of the fall of Adam whereby the work of salvation unduly centers on the forgiveness of sin achieved by Christ on the Cross. In contrast, the critics say, the Eastern understanding of salvation considers the fall and redemption in medicinal terms: human nature was fatally wounded and salvation by the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ centers on the defeat of death.(**)  

Fr. Anatalios trenchantly deals with this supposed opposition of Eastern and Western soteriology by revealing its surprising historical origin:

…the contrived modern binary between the putatively "ethical" Western approach to sin and salvation and the supposedly "ontological" Eastern approach…was originally promulgated by the pioneers of liberal Protestant theology, Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf von Harnack. It depicted the Western approach as preoccupied with the ethical categories of law and forgiveness, while asserting that the Eastern approach identified the problem that salvation resolved to be death, rather than sin, and conceived salvation as a "physical" or "mystical" process of deification. This caricaturing binary has not only alienated Eastern and Western traditions from each other but also alienated Eastern Christians from the fundamental sources of their own tradition (p.47).

In a footnote a few pages later, he laments "the extent to which Orthodox theology has been co-opted by the binary of the 'physical' and 'legal' aspects of redemption that was originally constructed by Western theologians" (p. 50).

Of course, that is not to say there is no difference between East and West in how the mystery of salvation is lived out, particularly in their respective liturgical traditions. Fr. Khaled's book is precisely aimed at presenting An Eastern Christian Theology of Salvation (the book's subtitle). But the difference cannot be justified by the common tropes that circulate in distinguishing the East from the West mentioned above, nor can it reflect a fundamental incompatibility between the Latin and Greek views, which would ultimately amount to incompatible notions about divine love and the divine nature.

So, if we agree that theosis belongs to both hemispheres of the Church, the question remains: what does it mean for us, in concrete terms, to "share in the Divine nature"? On that point, I'm not sure that the Church has a clear answer, apart from saying that it will be good beyond our ability to imagine. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard...

---------------

(*) A few years ago, Tim Staple wrote an article on the subject in Catholic Answers Magazine ("Are we Gods?" November 2012 issue) in which he lamented that deification is not getting the attention it deserves.

(**) Two common points advanced to defend this dichotomy are, on the one hand, the intense focus on the resurrection in the Sunday services of the Byzantine rite and, on the other, the view of atonement as “penal substitution” that emerged in the West in the Middle Ages.