The transfiguration of the believer is presented extensively in the context of the hesychastic tradition of unceasing prayer where Russell also briefly touches on the role of the vision of God in theosis.
Human self-transcendence, as fullness of human self-realization, occupies an important place in theosis that links human knowledge of the self with God and, through mystical rapture, establishes a dei-ficational relationship between God and the human person. This transcending self-realization, transformative and christological in its character and manifestation, is not the inherent potentiality of human nature, but the result of participation in divine grace through intellectual, ascetic, and liturgical aspects of Christian life. This apophatically expressed speculative mysticism of self-transcendence—deeply embedded in Neoplatonic philosophy, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and Maximus the Confessor with subsequent influence of hesychasm—acquires the leading role in the Eastern Orthodox understanding of theosis. Russell briefly points out how the influence of Berdyaev’s existentialist philosophy, significantly reinterpreted in the Neopatristic perspective by Vladimir Lossky, Christos Yannaras, and John Zizioulas, shapes the modern Orthodox response to personalist philosophy and its attempt to explain “how finite human beings can attain communion with a God who is personal and yet also infinite and supremely transcendent.”10
In the discussion of participation in the divine life, after briefly pointing out the meaning of the word “participation” in English and Greek, Russell concisely summarizes the main points of the patristic approach to participation in the context of deification, with its culmination in Gregory Palamas and subsequent influence of Palamism on modern Orthodox theology. Some uneasiness with Palamas’s essence/energy distinction in God—some offer the distinction full-hearted support (Lossky, Yannaras, and the majority of other modern Orthodox theologians) whilst others express reservations about it (Zizioulas)—in Russell’s opinion, is not so much evidence of divergence, as “the fruit of profound meditation on different strands of the patristic tradition” that are mainly complementary.11
The theme of union with God, according to Russell, was systematically introduced to patristic theology by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and from him firmly integrated in the Orthodox understanding of theosis. The nature of divine-human union, which neither presupposes identification of human beings with God nor human dissolution into the divine, is predominantly interpreted in later patristic and modern Orthodox thought in Palamite terms: “We become the same as God but different, a unity-in-diversity through participating in the divine energies.”12
Especially useful in this context is Russell’s summary-discussion-analysis of the somewhat “dissident” or maverick and, at the same time, innovative and original contributions to the theosis discourse made by Nicholas Berdyaev and Sergey Bulgakov, that still continue to stir tensions in Orthodox circles. Russell concludes his book by pointing out the practical aspect of theosis as the soteriological dimension of Christian life within the ecclesial community, with an eschatological perspective. This aspect of theosis is not the prerogative of spiritual elite, but “it is intended for all believers without exception.”13 On the theological side, the multi-faceted and dynamic character of deification discourse within Eastern Orthodoxy, and inter-denominational interest in theosis, should be welcomed as this discourse is far from being finalized.
The Eastern Orthodox interest in theosis, without doubt, makes an important contribution to the study of this subject. However, it does not hold anymore to the exclusive role often claimed by Orthodox theologians. As it has been already pointed out by Russell, even in modern Orthodox theology, theosis is far from being an univocally settled issue. Recent interest in deification also confirms that this theme attracts attention for its own sake, sometimes without a direct connection to Orthodox tradition. In this regard, I especially welcome the conclusion that one of the Eastern Orthodox theologians has recently drawn with respect to deification: “Clearly, the notion of theosis is no longer ‘owned’ by the Christian East, if such one-sided ownership was ever a historical possibility.”14 Even though Gavrilyuk’s re-visitation of contemporary discourse on the deification theme is still overshadowed by implications of past ecumenical developments, and the presumption that Eastern Orthodoxy has a “copyright” on it, his assessment is particularly helpful in emphasizing theosis as a significant issue of ongoing theological conversation on its own grounds, apart from denominational boundaries and a directly ecumenical incentive.
One noteworthy recent publication on theosis that attempts to offer a constructive theological examination is Paul Collins’s Partaking in Divine Nature: Deification and Communion (2010). Collins briefly reviews deificational precedents in popular pre-Christian Roman and Greek piety, Greek philosophy, Christian Scripture, and early patristic theology. His main focus is on an analysis of deification in Eastern Orthodoxy, which he presents in a reverse historical perspective, starting with the modern period and sequentially moving back to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor. Acknowledging the central role of theosis in Eastern Orthodox theology, often viewed as the core expression of self-understanding and the peculiar identity of this tradition, Collins proceeds to survey theosis in Western theology. His overview of Western Christian tradition includes not only medieval witness to deification, but also examination of explicit and implicit evidence of what he terms as “an architecture of the metaphor of deification” in the Reformation (including the Radical Reformation), Pietism, the Oxford movement, the Holiness movement, and concludes with contemporary Roman Catholic expression.
In this book, Collins is drawing a survey of deification that stretches over two-and-a-half millennia. This does not leave much room for a detailed assessment of peculiarities related to theosis diversity; nevertheless, his book presents an important reminder of, and testimony to, the vitality of the deification theme in both Eastern and Western Christian traditions. Particular interest in this book is due to Collins’s methodology of functionalization, and construal of the deification metaphor for contemporary theology, within the methodology of mystical theology, dynamic participation in the Trinity, sacramental theology, and the practice of virtuous life in Christ. This book presents one of the first theological constructive assessments of theosis and its importance for contemporary Christianity.
Michael Gorman’s well researched, annotated, and contextualized book, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (2009), presents a comprehensive assessment of the main Pauline tenets, such as kenosis, sanctification, justification, holiness, and participation, where theosis receives central treatment in the integrated soteriological perspective of Paul’s theology. In the beginning of the book Gorman offers a trinitarian and christocentrically-minded definition of theosis: “Theosis is transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ.”15 And throughout his book Gorman is successfully arguing, as he sums it up: “for a single Pauline soteriology of participation in the life of the triune cruciform God known in the cross of Christ, and we have called this theosis.”16
Portraying God’s kenotic descent in Christ, and his acting in what can be seen as a shockingly ungodly manner for the common human perception of divinity, Paul elevates the significance of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, and proclaims Christ to be the Lord, in contrast to the typical Roman understanding of imperial power and honor. The contrast between the divinity of Christ, kenotically manifested in his humanity, and the divinity of the Roman imperial cult, is especially important for an understanding of vertical and horizontal dimensions of divine economy and its manifestation in Christian community. It is also important for understanding the role of Christian community in the participatory and reciprocal process of transformative deification: a process that is both reminiscent of traditional Christian understanding of the imitatio Christi, and the representation of theosis as christification.
Gorman’s dealing with justification in Paul is exceptionally good. He proposes very valuable methodology for his interpretation of justification, the cross, and salvation in Paul, that also can be effectively applied to the study of theosis.17 Implementing his five-principle methodology: 1) recognition of contextual specificity; 2) the practice of prudent connectivity; 3) recognition of theological complementarity;
