The Concept of Energy in T. F. Torrance and in Orthodox Theology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CONCEPT OF ENERGY IN T. F. TORRANCE AND IN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY Stoyan Tanev, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Technology & Innovation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Theology, nieity o Sof lgi Co-founder, International Center for Theologicl Scientifc lte [email protected] Abstract: The motivation for this paper is fourfold: (1) to emphasize the fact that the teaching on the distinction between Divine essence and energies is an integral part of Orthodox theology; (2) to provide an analysis of why Torrance did not adhere to it; (3) to correct certain erroneous perceptions regarding Orthodox theology put forward by scholars who have already discussed Torrance’s view on the essence-energies distinction in its relation to eication or theosis an nall to suggest an analsis emonstrating the correlation between Torrance’s engagements with particular themes in modern physics and the content of his theological positions. This last analsis is mae comparing his scientic theological approach to the approach of Christos Yannaras. The comparison provides an opportunity to emonstrate the correlation etween their preoccupations with specic themes in moern phsics an their specic theological insights. Thomas Torrance has clearly neglected the epistemological insights emerging from the advances of quantum mechanics in the 20th century and has ended up neglecting the value of the Orthodox teaching on the distinction between Divine essence and energies. This neglect seems to be associated with his specic prehalceonian unerstaning of personprosoponhpostasis. s a result he has expressed opinions that contradict the apophatic character of the distinction between Divine essence and energies and the subtlety of the apophatic realism of iinehuman communion. The conclusion oers a er brief comparison of some of Torrance’s key theological ideas with the ideas of 190 Participatio is licensed by the T. F. Torrance Theological Fellowship under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. C E T. F. T O T two Orthodox theologians - Metr. John Ziziuolas and Fr. Dumitru Stniloae. It is suggeste that the iscussion of Torrances specic theological positions incluing his critiue of the istinction etween iine essence an energies should be considered as a fruitful resource in some of the ongoing Orthodox theological discussions. I. Introduction The distinction between the essence and energy of God is a basic principle of the Trinitarian thinking of the Eastern Church.1 While some tend to associate it exclusively with the works of St. Gregory Palamas and the theological controversies of 14th century Byzantium, Gregory himself considered his theological eorts as a direct elaboration on the dogmatic defnitions of the th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 8081), referring back to the works of Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. John of Damascus. Recent scholarship has demonstrated the link between Palamas’ teaching and the Greek Fathers before him, as well as the early Christian appropriation and transformation of Hellenic philosophical understandings of energeia.2 The fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks initiated centuries of struggle during which Orthodox theology, in particular the teaching on the Divine essence and energies, did not fnd a strongly articulate voice. However, the theology of Palamas was rediscovered in the frst half of the 20th century. The rediscovery was initiated by the theological controversies associated with some Russian monks on Mount Athos who were accused of claiming that the name of God is God Himself (the so-called Name-worshipers or Imiaslavtzi), and whose teaching was associated with the theology of St. Gregory Palamas.3 This rediscovery, together with 1 See Amphiloque (Radovic) du Montenegro et du Littoral, Le Mystère de la Sainte Trinité selon Saint Grégoire Palamas (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 2012). 2 Jean-Claude Larchet, La théologie des énergies Divines des origines à saint Jean Damascène (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2010); David Bradshaw, ristotle East an est: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 3 See Catherine Evtuhov, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997); Hilarion Alfeev, Le Mystère sacré de l’Église – Introduction à l’histoire et à la problématique des débats athoniques sur la vénération du nom du Dieu (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2007); Stoyan Tanev, vs : The contribution of Fr. Georges Florovsky to the rediscovery of the Orthodox teaching on the distinction between the Divine essence and energies,” International Journal of Orthodox Theology 2, No. 1 (2011): 15-71; and Stoyan 191 P: T J T. F. T T F the controversy revolving around the sophiology of Fr. Sergii Bulgakov,4 is of particular interest, as it initiated a renewal of Orthodox theology by reopening some key theological themes, including the essence-energies distinction, which have impacted Orthodox theology to the present.5 In parallel to the Orthodox theological renewal in the frst half of the 20th century there were ongoing inter-confessional debates (predominantly between Orthodox and Roman Catholics) focusing on the relevance of the theology of St. Gregory Palamas. These debates emerged within theological circles associated with the Russian diaspora in France and clearly contributed to the rediscovery and the appropriation of the teaching on the distinction between Divine essence and energies. This distinction has become a quite sensitive topic in inter- confessional discussions ever since, due to its relation to all-important chapters of Christian theology as well as to such controversial issues as the lioue. According to Duncan Reid, the distinction between essence and energies runs “directly contrary, it seems, to one of the basic principles of the Western Trinitarian tradition, viz. ‘that we have no formula for the being of God in Godself other than the being of God in the world.’”7 In Reid’s view, the Western position is an “a priori though not always acknowledged, methodological principle,” while in the East it is a recognized doctrine, confrmed by ecclesiastical synods, that has in Tanev, “The Theology of Divine Energies in 20th Century Orthodox Thought” (Phd Diss., Sofa University, 2012). 4 For a summary of Bulgakov’s sophiological doctrine, see Sergius Bulgakov, isom of o: rief ummar of ophiolog (New York: The Paisley Press–Williams and Norgate, 1937). 5 Here the following works are representative and of special historical importance: Georges Florovsky, “Tvar’ I tvarnost’,” Pravoslavnaya Mysl’ 1 (1928): 17–212; and L’ide de la création dans la philosophie Chrétienne,” Logos: Revue Internationale de la Pensee Orthodoxe 1, (1928): 3-30; Vasily Krivocheine, spetichesoe i ogoslosoe uchenie svyatogo Grigoriya Palamy (Praha: Seminarium Kondakovianum 8, 193); Dumitru Staniloae, Viata i învatatura Sf. Grigorie Palama. Cu trei tratate traduse (Sibiu: n.p. 1938); Vladimir Lossky, ssai sur la thlogie mstiue e lglise rient (Paris: Aubier, 1944); Jean Meyendor, ntrouction lEtue e rgoire Palamas (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1959); John Romanides, The ncestral in: comparatie stu of our ancestors am an Ee accoring to the paraigms an octrines of the rstan seconcentur hurch an the ugustinian formulation of original sin (Ridgewood: Zphyr, 2002). See the Introduction to Jean-Claude Larchet, La théologie 0des énergies Divines des origines à saint Jean Damascène (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2010). 7 Duncan Reid, Energies of the pirit: Trinitarian oels in Eastern rthoox an estern Theolog (Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1997), 3, referring to F. D. E. Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, ed. M. Redeker (Berlin: de Gruyter, 190), 2:589. 192 C E T. F. T O T turn certain methodological ramifcations.8 Here Reid refers to the relevance of the Church councils in 14th century Byzantium that provided the most explicit doctrinal articulation of this teaching. The importance of these councils for Orthodox theology is well expressed by a statement of Fr. Georges Florovsky: This basic distinction (i.e., between Divine essence and energies) has been formally accepted and elaborated at the Great Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351. Those who would deny this distinction were anathematized and excommunicated. The anathematisms of the council of 1351 were included in the rite for the Sunday of Orthodoxy, in the Triodion. Orthodox theologians are bound by this decision.”9 The motivation to focus on this theme of Divine energy in a special issue dedicated to Thomas F. Torrance and his theological relations with Orthodoxy is fourfold. First, it is to emphasize the fact that this teaching is an integral part of Orthodox theology, and second, to provide an initial analysis of why Torrance did not adhere to it. Third, I hope that the discussion suggested here will help in correcting certain erroneous perceptions regarding Orthodox theology put forward by scholars who have already discussed Torrance’s view on the essence and energies distinction in its relation to deifcation or theosis. Fourth and fnally, the motivation for the present paper is to suggest an analysis demonstrating the correlation between Torrance’s engagements with particular themes in modern physics and the content of his theological positions. This last analysis is of particular relevance since