MATTHEW G. CHAPMAN NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD, THE COSMOS, AND NOVUS HOMO: AN EASTERN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE

MATTHEW G. CHAPMAN NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD, THE COSMOS, AND NOVUS HOMO: AN EASTERN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE The Orthodox Church approaches theology in quite a different
manner than the Western Church. If one keeps in mind the oft-cited maxim of St. Athanasios, that God became man that man might become divine, the Orthodox view of theology is not difficult to grasp. And it is precisely the perspective grasped in that maxim which is the sine qua non for understanding the Orthodox stance vis-à-vis God, the cosmos, and the 'new man.' To approach these subjects without considering the unique theological dialectic of the Eastern Church would be unwise indeed. The Holy Apostle Paul wrote divers letters that have for many hundreds of years been recognized by the Church as 'inspired.'
They are recognized as such not because of St. Paul's own special worth, but rather because of the divinity which dwelled within him. "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2.20). St. Paul's resurrected condition is a potential offered to every Christian. Also, the Holy Spirit still bestows His gifts, allowing men to witness and serve with wisdom, knowledge, faith, discernment,
and miracles (I Cor 12.8-10). Therefore, a man's words may still be 'inspired,' not because of his own aptitudes, rationality,
intelligence, or any other quality specific to man's own nature, but because God dwells within him. The indwelling divinity literally transforms a man and gives a completely new life to the old death-ridden nature. It is then that human actions, faculties, and words correctly serve the immanent and ineffably transcendent God. Here we have the Ursprung of Orthodox theology. For the Eastern Orthodox Church, then, the most highly regarded theologians, the theologians pleno jure, are those who have died that Christ might live within them. They are men who have been transformed by the fullness of God's Grace, who have basked in the glory of His Mysteries, and who speak from what
252 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW they have seen. They are holy or, as the West would have it (and limitingly so),1 mystics. Because of the divinity which fills these men, they can do nothing but reflect and affirm the words of Christ and the Apostles. For "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday
and today and forever" (Heb 13.8). The Holy Fathers may differ in style and sometimes even in nomenclature, but at the deepest and most authentic level they and the Apostles are stating together the same thing, affirming the one truth, the 'mystical theology.' Such 'mystical theology' is of no small importance for the Orthodox Church. It is not aloof or speculative; it is inextricably
involved in the whole of Church life. As are the Holy Gospels,
the writings of the Fathers are invaluable milestones and guideposts for each soul's ascent to its Creator. Equally important,
these writings safeguard and embody the purity and Tradition
of the Church, who in Her divinely-appointed forms of worship and communion offers the soul transforming, Grace-filled food. The Divine Liturgy itself is permeated with the teachings of the Father, as the Fathers are filled with the same Grace of the Liturgy. All this is because "in these last days He has spoken to us by a son" (Heb 1.2), because God has freely offered his transforming Grace to men who on their own chose (and merited) perdition. God, the cosmos, the 'new man' cannot be understood outside of the mystical theology which lives and breathes this 'transforming Grace.' The Nature of God. A proper understanding of the nature of God is important for at least two reasons. First, it is God whom man seeks in his activities, the God who sought man first (Staretz Silouan). It is, therefore, important that man be properly directed in all aspects of his search, lest he fall short of the True God in his worship, prayers, or aspirations. Secondly, man himself is made in the image of God, and it is only in his relationship to God that he comes to understand his own true nature. To know the purpose and function of the pot, one has to know something
about the potter. Paradoxically, God is ultimately unknowable. The greatest depths of His nature and essence will remain inaccessible to man forever. 1 For a discussion of the frequently improper usage of the term 'mystic,' especially
as applied to the practitioners of hesychasm, see John S. Romanides, "Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics-II." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 9(1963-64), esp. p. 232.
NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD 253 The super-essential nature of God is not a subject for speech or thought or even contemplation, for it is far removed from all that exists and more than unknowable, being founded on the un circumscribed might of the celestial spirits—incomprehensible
and ineffable to all forever? To safeguard the doctrine of God's ultimate transcendence of human cognition, Orthodoxy makes a hierarchical distinction between 'cataphatic' and 'apophatic' theology, which correspond
in type to theological affirmations or denials, respectively. Cataphatically, God is an ultimate and eternal Being; on the higher and more 'truthful' apophatic level, however, God is not in essence understandable by terms like ultimate, eternal, or Being. God is, in the apophatic sense, beyond levels of gradation
and beyond the categories of time and existence themselves, since these are but categories appropriate to mere human thinking.
(Pseudo) Dionysios the Areopagite, whose short treatise Concerning Mystical Theology is a prototypical exposition of the higher road of apophatic theology, concludes, strangely enough, with a denial of denial itself: When we make affirmations and negations about the things which are inferior to it (God), we affirm and deny nothing about the Cause itself, which, being wholly apart from all things, is above all affirmation, as the supremacy of Him who, being in His simplicity freed from all things and beyond everything, is above all denial.3 All categories of human thought and apprehension fall radically short of the Godhead. The fact that Dionysios chose "Concerning Mystical Theology"
as the title for his treatise on the preeminence of apophatic theology is indicative of the practical importance of theology. The apophatic way, 'mystical theology,' is, upon internalization,
a disposition of the mind and soul that keeps one from being shackled either by his own mode of apprehension (God being beyond apprehension) or by any object of contemplation (God being beyond subject-object distinctions). Its aim is precisely
the aim of the rest of Christianity: participation in and union (albeit limited) with the Godhead. Thus apophaticism is at the heart of the formulation of Christian dogma, of the mysteries of the revelation. 2 St. Gregory Palamas, "Theophanes," PG 150.937. 3 PG 3.1048.
254 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Negative theology is not merely a theory of ecstasy. It is an expression of that fundamental attitude which transforms the whole of theology into a contemplation of the mysteries of revelation . . . Apophaticism teaches us to see above all a negative
meaning in the dogmas of the Church: it forbids us to follow natural ways of thought and to form concepts which would usurp the place of spiritual realities. For Christianity is not a philosophical school for speculating about abstract concepts, but is essentially a communion with the living God.4 The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is yet another doctrine which is apophatic at heart. Orthodox dogma teaches that the Godhead is made up of three distinct Persons (Hypostases) with the fullness of the Divine Nature residing in each Person. One nature (homoousios) residing equally in three persons (hypostases).
When I speak of God you must be illumined at once by one flash of light and by three. Three in Properties or Hypostases
. . . but One in respect of the ousia—that is, the Godhead.
For they are divided indivisibly, if I may say so; and they are conjoined dividedly. For the Godhead is One in Three, and the Three are One, in whom the Godhead is, or, to speak more accurately, Who are the Godhead.5 The Godhead is 'indivisibly divided' or distinguished into three Persons on the basis of origin. The Father is the unbegotten source and origin of the divine nature. The Son is begotten or generated, and the Holy Spirit proceeds (as with the Son) from the Father; yet, each of them bears the fullness of the Divine Nature. The 'how' of the Son's begottenness or of the Holy Spirit's procession is a mystery that is simply unavailable to human understanding. You ask, what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we will both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.6 4 Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Cambridge, 1968), p. 42. 5 St. Gregory Nazianzen, "In Sancta Lumina, Oratio ΧΧΧΙΧ, xi," PG 36.345. 6 Idem, "Oratio ΧΧΧΙ (Theologica V), 8," PG 36.146.
NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD 255 The Oneness of the Godhead is preserved by the monarchy of the Father, who is the sole source of the Divine Nature. Yet, as noted previously, the Divine Nature resides wholly and equally in each of the three Persons: Godhead . . . neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same (save the distinctions of origin—unbegotten, begotten, proceeding);. . . the infinite connaturality of Three Infinite Ones, each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three, one God when contemplated together, each God because consubstan-tial; the Three, one God because of the monarchy.7 Thus there is a perfect balance in Orthodox dogma between the Threeness and the Oneness of God. , The Holy Fathers take special pains to preserve the paradox of the Trinity, for it is not a doctrine subject to human consideration;
rather, the Holy Trinity is eternally at the heart of the Godhead, regardless of man's activity or existence. It was only by revelation that man learned of that which was eternally so, without cause. Therefore, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is proper to an apophatic disposition, for man of himself can neither produce, nor rationalize, nor comprehend the fact that Three equals One in the Godhead. In order to participate in this mystery, man must relinquish those operations proper to himself and immerse himself in that which has come from beyond. . . . Apophaticism finds its fulfillment in the revelation of the Holy Trinity as primordial fact, ultimate reality, first datum which cannot be deduced, explained, or discovered by way of any other truth, for there is nothing which is prior to it. Apophatic
thought, renouncing every support, finds its support in God, whose incomprehensibility appears as Trinity. Here thought gains a stability which cannot be shaken, theology finds its foundation; ignorance passes into knowledge.8 The Cosmos. The Orthodox understanding of the cosmos also has its foundation in revelation and consequently has a predominantly
soteriological (and theocentric) orientation: "I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God made 7 Idem, "In Sane. Bapt., Oratio XL, 43," PG 36.417. 8 Lossky, p. 64.
256 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW them out of things that did not exist. Thus also mankind comes into being" (2 Mc 7.28). The creation was ex nihilo, out of nothing. Before the creation nothing existed outside of God. There was no formless matter upon which he imposed order and form; all levels of creation, from the grossly physical to the spiritually angelic, were called forth by God from nothingness. Thus, creation has no ontological source, rather it has nothingness
for a non-ontological source. Again, creation was not an outpouring of the Divine Nature. God remained separate from His creation, or the creation existed outside God, not geometrically
but by the difference in the uncreated and created natures. "All things are from God; not in place, but in nature."9 As regards the cause of the creation, Orthodoxy is careful to assert that the creation was a free act of God. God contemplated all things before their existence, formulating
them in His mind ; and each being received its existence at a particular moment, according to His eternal thought and will, which is predestination, an image and a model.10 The divine ideas, the 'thought-wills' or 'predestinations' of God, do not in any way determine God's essence. They are dynamic and intentional in character, and thus have their place in His energies, not in His essence (the uncreated, divine energies being a part of the uncreated nature of God but distinct from the forever
inaccessible essence of God).11 There is thus no link of necessity between the Divine Nature and the creation. God did not 'have to' create, nor is His creation by any necessity a replica of His own Divine Nature. Rather, His creation is entirely fresh and has been granted existence (out of nothingness) by a free, non-contingent act of His own Will. Just as creation had its cause in the Free Will of God, so too all of creation must look to God for a meaning and purpose to its existence. Created being was from its very inception made for change. All of creation came into being according to the corresponding divine ideas which preordained, or modeled, the different mode of each creature's participation in the uncreated energies. Instead of immediately realizing this foreordained participation
(which would have made the creation less a creative 9 St. John of Damascus, Writings, trans. Frederic H. Chase (New York, 1958), p. 199. 10 Ibid., "De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 2," PG 94.837. 11 After Lossky, p. 95.
NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD 257 act of a personal God and more the simple effluence of the Divine Nature), each creature was offered a path of 'synergy,' wherein the created will should cooperate with the divine 'idea-willings' of God in the process of deification, the increased participation
in (the uncreated energies of) the Godhead. Therefore, deification is the end and meaning of creation, implicit in its very beginning. The Eastern tradition knows nothing of'pure nature' to which grace is added as a supernatural gift. For it, there is no natural or 'normal' state, since grace is implied in the act of creation itself.12 Man's Divinely Appointed Function and His Fall. Man, in his diversity,
participates in all levels of created being. Within himself he finds elements of the 'intelligible universe' (the realm offknow-ledge and angelic spirits) as well as from the 'sensible universe' (the world that we perceive through our five senses). By uniting these diverse elements within himself—thus uniting the whole of creation—and simultaneously surrendering himself unto God "in a complete abandonment of love,"13 man would have expressed
the willful self-offering of the whole of creation unto the Creator. God, in His turn, would have given Himself unto man, and thus effected the deification of the whole of His creation
in and through His last creature (man). This is the potential,
the divinely-appointed function that was given to man. But man failed in his task. His failure was one of disobedience,
a lapsing out of the cooperation implied in 'synergy,' a setting up of his own will against that of God. For Orthodox, man's fall, the Lapsus, was like a wayfarer departing from the path, indeed the only path, that led to his rightful home. The fall was not a departure from an originally static and perfect nature; it was the interruption—the cessation of a priceless process.
Thus the consequences of the Fall were not products of what man had lost, but of what he had chosen. Man did not lose his free will; he chose to exercise his will outside and even against «that of his Creator, which necessarily weakened his own will and restricted its scope. Man did not 'fall' into a state where his nature became sinful. He chose to remain and indulge in his own undeified nature, refusing the Grace (and concomitant deification)
that God offered. The consequence of man's denial of 12 Lossky, p. 101. 13 Ibid., p. 110.
258 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW interior Grace was slavery. Man became a 'slave to sin,' a state wherein he could not bridge the separation, or rather reopen the bridge he had denied between himself and God. Note that sin is not here (or anywhere else in Orthodoxy) a succumbing to something that is intrinsically evil; instead, sin is a willful participation
in any activity in such a manner as to separate oneself from God. Hence, as man approaches Christ he comes as a somewhat crippled creature, not as one which is thoroughly destroyed. His fall was not from the heights of heaven, but from a precious road; so, man "is not to be judged too harshly for his error"14 (though the denial of his potential is indeed lamentable). His free will is restricted in scope, but by no means wholly lost. "The image of God is distorted by sin, but never destroyed . . ."ls Such an understanding of the Fall—from a process, not a state, and with the retention of the 'image'—will be seen below to correspond to the Orthodox hesychastic tradition, the renewal of divinization made possible by Christ.16 The Incarnation and Hesychasm. In any discussion of the Incarnation,
man must be careful not to lavish layers of human dependencies
or categories upon what was wholly a divine revelation. Even to speak of this great mystery in the syllogisms of mundane
logic is to distort it. In this respect, Ernst Benz, contrasting
Orthodox and Western theology, has remarked upon the excesses of the Western Church: While Paul's doctrine of justification never had any decisive importance in the East . . . , it had far-flung consequences for the West . . . Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) viewed the legal relationship existing between God and man as the very cornerstone of all theological thinking, so much so that he believed he could logically deduce the truth of the Christian religion and the necessity for the incarnation of God from the idea of 'satisfaction.' The convenant theology of scholasticism
regarded the history of salvation in general as a history of ever-renewed legal covenants between God and man.17 14 Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Baltimore, 1967), p. 228. 15 Ibid., pp. 228-29. 16 The importance of this possibility of divinization for the hesychastic tradition is made quite clear in a parenthetical footnote in an essay by Gonzalez, A.E.J., "History and Politics of the Byzantine Church: Some Historiographical Perspectives" Kleronomia, 1976, No. 2. 17 Ernst Benz, The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life (New York, 1963), p. 46.
NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD 259 As with the creation of the very cosmos, man must not attribute any 'necessity' to God's actions. Such anthropomorphizing in logical categories is a hindrance to true theological understanding.
In keeping with any of God's actions, the Incarnation must first and foremost be understood as an act of Love: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life" (Jn 3. 16). The Fathers of the Church have restated this 'Gospel in miniature' countless times: "For he was made man, so that we might be made God."18 The act of Incarnation as well as the content (Christ) proceeds from the depths or heart of God, because it corresponds to His very nature—Love (1 Jn 4.8). Because of the unfathomable depth from which the Incarnation
proceeds, man with his limited view can offer no truer (or more accurate) explanation than 'Love.' Therefore, instead of dealing with the 'why' or 'how,' the Fathers of the Church (following
the example of the Gospel) address their attention to the effects of the Incarnation. From man's fallen point of view, the Incarnation immediately means a deliverance from the bonds of sin. What is new in the New Testament ... is the Incarnation and salvation event whereby the power of the devil is abolished once and for all, and the Body of Christ, the Church, is delivered from death (Hades) and made inviolate against its gates.19 When we spoke of man's fall, we mentioned that the consequences
of man's willful departure from 'synergy' were a rejection
of the interior working of Grace and a subsequent bondage to sin. From another point of view, man's fall is viewed as an arrogant assumption of roles proper only to God. Though he had apart from God no true life within himself, man chose to view the world as though he himself were a lord and the creator. His perception of the world 'fell' and became appropriately conformed to his fallen self-image. For example, according to his 'creator' image, man began to think that he himself was the creator of the highest expression of life—his children (a delusion, for only God creates life, being the Way, Truth, and Life Himself).
Or, according to his 'lord' image, man came to view the 18 St. Athanasios, "Incarnation of the Word." In Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds.), The Micene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, 1957), 4.65. 19 Romanides, p. 249.
260 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW world as having been created solely for his own pleasure and dominion. Having isolated himself from the Grace of God, he became entrapped in his illusory self-world-view, which came to bear less and less resemblance either to the real world (and its corresponding potential) or to the 'image' within him (and the corresponding potential of'likeness,' of becoming divine).20 Thus as well as isolation from interior Grace, a blindness to man's (and the world's) true potential and a bondage to the illusory self-view (and world-view) are proper descriptions of the result of the Fall.21 From such an understanding of the Fall, the deliverance from the bonds of sin ("whereby the power of the devil is abolished once and for all") is seen as occurring through the gift of a new vision to man. This is the vision of a renewed potentiality, or likeness, offered by God—in Christ—to man. Christ, the second Adam, showed man what the true likeness of God was, and at the same time he bore the means—Grace—to that end. Christ (perfect man) was not only God's message to man of what he might be, but was also the Uncreated Divinity who transforms (perfect God); Christ was (indeed, is) the Word. Orthodox, looking from a human perspective (obviously limited), view the Incarnation as a radical intrusion of God into man's fallen world,22 an 'expression' of God's love forman and intense 'desire' to return the lost sheep to the fold23 before its (man's) perdition was sealed. At the same time, Eastern Orthodox
see the depth of Love within that 'intrusion,' where God humbled Himself to an infinite degree in order to speak to man 20 On the idea of'likeness,' Ouspensky cites the first mention of man in Scripture: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness" (Gen 1.26) and remarks: "According to this design, man should be not only an image of God, his Creator, but should also bear His likeness. Yet in the description of the accomplished act of creation
'And God made man, according to the image of God he made him' (Gen 1.27), nothing is said about likeness. It is given to man as a task, to be fulfilled by the action of the Holy Spirit, with the free participation of man himself." Leonide Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning of Icons (Boston, 1956), p. 35. 21 The illusory nature of man's Weltansicht is beautifully presented by Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov in his response to man's 'normal' worldly experience: "Beloved brother, the peace which makes you think your way is right is simply insensitivity and unawareness of your sinfulness due to your negligent life, while the joy you feel from time to time as a result of outward success and human praise is not holy and spiritual joy at all; it is the fruit of self-opinion, self-satisfaction, and vainglory." This translated excerpt from Bishop Ignaty's "The Arena" can be found in an excellent editorial essay, "A Man is His Faith," Nikodemos, 1975, Vol. 4, p. 12. 22 This concept of intrusion is implied in Jn 1.14. 23 See Jn 10.11 ff. and Matt 18.10 ff.
NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD 261 in his own language and to attract his willful participation in the soteriological scheme.24 But perhaps the best understanding of the Incarnation (or any subject of theology) can be seen in the hesychastic tradition of 'noetic prayer,' which is regarded by the Orthodox Church as the highest form of prayer. The words "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner," or a slight variant thereof, usually constitute the verbal component of the prayer; but as simple as these words may seem, the theology behind the prayer is endless. For our purpose suffice it to say that for the words of the prayer itself, Far from rendering the interior life mechanical, [they have] the effect, on the contrary, of freeing it and turning it towards contemplation ['making it receptive to divinization' is truer to Orthodoxy] by constantly driving away from the region of the heart all contagion of sin, and every external thought or image; and this by the power of the most holy Name of Jesus.25 Before dealing with the transformation of man that is the aim of hesychasm, a brief statement of Orthodox anthropology is necessary. Man is basically bipartite, with a soul, composed of a noetic faculty (nous—often translated as 'spirit') and a discursive
intellect (sometimes replaced by psyche), and a body. The noetic faculty is capable of interaction with both the soul's discursive intellect and the physical body, and a reordering of this interactive relationship is precisely the effect of the Incarnation.
26 According to hesychastic tradition, The noetic faculty is liberated by the power of the Holy Spirit from the influences of both the body and the discursive intellect
and engages uninterruptedly and ceaselessly with prayer alone. The fascinating thing about this actual state of prayer... is that, although the physical and intellectual faculties no longer exercise any influence whatsoever on the noetic faculty, they are themselves, however, dominated by the noetic
faculty's unceasing prayer in such a fashion that they are spiritually cleansed and inspired and at the same time may engage in their normal activities.27 24 St. Athanasios, Incarnation of the Word, esp. section 41. 25 Lossky, pp. 210-11. 26 Romanides, p. 229. 27 IWd.
262 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW The awakening of the noetic faculty is the precise work of the Incarnation. Christ broke man's bondage to his (man's) fallen view of the world ("the influences of both the body and the discursive
intellect") by restoring within him the vision of the potential
to which he was called. At the same time Christ gave the means by which man could realize his "liberation" from bondage-
the Comforter," . . . the power of the Holy Spirit," Grace. This power, Grace, is what might be called the God-given language
that is appropriate to the reactivated noetic faculty. Grace is the transforming uncreated energy of God which is directly responsible for our transformation and divinization.28 By Grace our fallen natures are "spiritually cleansed and inspired" by the breath, the Grace, of God. For Orthodoxy, man's proper response to the Incarnation is to accept the invitation to a renewed beginning of synergy, to realign
(with the constant help of Grace) his own will to God's. Grace is the all-important factor in man's transformation, so all practices (praxis—prayer, fasting, prostrations, etc.) are viewed as means (often indispensable means) to the end of "purity of heart," a state of receptivity to the Holy Spirit (Grace).29 The noetic "unceasing prayer" of hesychastic practice is the highest form of man's attempt to let the means correspond to the end. We have seen how apophatic theology can play a role in spirituality;
man's mind may be properly disposed towards the "un-knowability" of God. Yet as man's spirituality blossoms with the inworking of Grace, man finds that all systems of thought, indeed everything that comes from man, ultimately means 28 Lossky expresses this as follows: "The fruit of prayer is divine love, which is simply grace, appropriated in the depths of our being. For love, according to Diado-chus, is not simply a movement of the soul, but is also an uncreated gift-a divine energy-which continually inflames the soul and unites it to God by the power of the Holy Spirit" (p. 212). 29 Cf. St. Seraphim of Sarov's especially poignant defense of practice (praxis) as 'means to an end*: "Prayer, fasting, watching, and all other Christian acts, however good they may be, do not alone constitute the aim of our Christian life, although they serve as the indispensable means of reaching this aim. The true aim of our Christian
life, is to acquire the Holy Spirit of God." From Nicholas Motovilov's "A Conversation
of St. Seraphim of Sarov with Nicholas Motovilov Concerning the Aim of the Christian Life," G.P. Fedotov, A Treasury of Russian Spirituality (New York, 1965), p. 267. Concerning 'purity of heart,' see Lossky, p. 203. Regarding 'receptivity,' Lossky notes that "the nature of spiritual prayer in the tradition of the Christian East consists in making the heart ready for the indwelling of grace by constantly guarding its interior purity" (p. 211).
NOTES ON THE NATURE OF GOD 263 nothing in relation to God. As Dionysios said, God is beyond affirmation and denial. In the "simplicity" of noetic prayer, one may witness a far purer expression of man's attempt to understand
(receive) Christ without accommodating Him to man's own view of the world.30 Here one gathers oneself and, with one's sinful view of the world, falls before the feet of Christ that He might, in His purity and according to His Will, "have mercy on a sinner." Christ humbly besought and received in unceasing prayer truly becomes both the means and the end. The New Cosmos and Novus Homo. As man is transformed by the inpouring of Grace, he is literally divinized,31 he becomes the 'new man.' His theosis comes solely from participation in the Divine Nature (the Uncreated Energies of God), not from anything
that resides in his own nature. Nevertheless, by the indwelling
of the Grace of God, man's human faculties—his intellect
and body—"are spiritually cleansed and inspired."32 With such a cleansing man finds that his fallen world, which has its source in his own fallen nature, begins to fade and be replaced by the New Heaven and the New Earth. Man's vision is transformed
and consequently so is the world in which he dwells. With the Incarnation, man may actually transform the world! This casting down of the old world and the old order (death and destruction) is what we spoke of earlier as man's "divinely-appointed function." It is that for which "the whole creation has been groaning in travail. . ." (Rom 8.22). In and through Christ (and assuredly only so), man may fulfill that potential to which he has been called for ages. As the Golden-Mouthed St. John hymns this potential in his Easter Homily, Citing St. Mark the Hermit, Lossky contends that "far from seeking ecstasy or a state of excitement, the spirit must be constantly on its guard against giving any particular image to the Godhead ... In freeing itself completely from all conceptualization
of the Godhead, 'the spirit receives into itself the characteristics of a deiform image and becomes clothed with the ineffable beauty of the likeness of the Lord'. . ." (pp. 211-12). 31 Some sense of this notion is found in Father Georges Florovsky's discussion of St. Gregory Palamas and the Patristic tradition: "Man now is admitted into an intimate 'communion' with God, through Christ and by the powei of the Holy Spirit. And this is much more thar. just a 'moral' communion, and much more than just a human perfection. Only the word theosis can render adequately the uniqueness of the promise and offer ... It is that intimate intercourse of man with God, in which the whole of human existence is, as it were, permeated by the Divine Presence," Collected Works, Vol. I. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont, Mass., 1972), p. 115. 32 Romanides, p. 229.
264 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW O Death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory? Christ is risen and thou art cast down. Christ is risen and the demons have fallen. Christ is risen and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen and life is made free. Christ is risen and there is none dead in the tomb. For Christ is raised from the dead and become the first-fruits of them that slept. To Him be glory and dominion from all ages to all ages! Amen.
^s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.