In the last Carnival of Reconciliation Weekend Fisher (a Lutheran) asked:
For anyone Eastern Orthodox, could you please give the brief explanation of the distinction between God’s essence and God’s energy, and why it matters? I’m asking because I wish to improve my own understanding, and it seems to be a useful distinction that should be more generally known, but is little developed in western Christianity.
I’m going to attempt an answer for the next carnival, but first a disclaimer of sorts. I was raised Lutheran, fell away, attended an Episcopal church for almost a decade and a half, during which I “fell back” somewhat recently (about three years ago) and returned to the faith. My reading and study since then has led me to Eastern Orthodoxy … and I (and much of my family) are being chrismated as such a week from Saturday (and won’t get “nervous at the call “the doors the doors!” 
). But I’ve been studying Orthodox theology and writings for some time now and will attempt to summarize the reason for and point of essence/energy as expounded in Patristic theology below the fold). Any errors in the understanding or explanation are mine.
The essence (substance)/energy (will/action) distinction regarding God is not one which Western theology has, to my knowledge as well as the more expert theologians I’m following on this as well, made. Three questions might be asked of this idea, that is of making the essence/energy distinction, specifically
- What is the reason for the distinction?
- What are the particulars of the distinction?
- What impact might this then have on the rest of one’s theology?
According to Metropolitan John Zizioulas, who is an important/leading 20th century Orthodox theologian (Metropolitan by the by is the title given to an Orthodox bishop of a region which includes a major city), the essence/energy distinction is:
… essentially nothing other than a device created by the Greek Fathers to safeguard the absolute transcendence of God without alienating Him from the world … [a bit elided here ] … ‘Energy’ by being uncreated, involves in history and creation the very being of God; yet, by being distinct from God’s ‘Essence’, it allows for God’s immanent being to be ‘incomprehensible’ and truly beyond history and creation.
The distinction in brief is as follows (what follows is taken from John Romanides An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics. The essence (being) of God is not approachable or knowable by man (God being uncreated and man … created). Man’s attempt to know God as uncreated ends “in idolatry”. So how do we get knowledge and to hope for (or reach) theosis? That is done via His energies. It is by God’s actions, which are distinct from His essence that we come to interact with the divine. Western theology identified essence and energy (notions like “God is pure energy” come from this sort of expression).
An example of the working out of the implications of this is Creation. Without this distinction, before creation, God must have been potentially the Creator and after Creation actually the creator. God then is changeable … and therefore imperfect. By making this distinction however, God is free to act, in that his essence remains unchanged because it his will … his energies by which creation or whatever else He does is effected.
Another example is that Augustine was led to baptism with the idea, “I believe so that I might understand.”, which can be interpreted as that after baptism we gain the ability to understand the dogmas of the faith, to explain them with reason, and to come to know God’s essence. By contrast, Orthodox Patristic teaching is that baptism is a betrothal with the Spirit, Following baptism man moves towards a marriage with the Spirit (energies) of God. Zizioulas notes that whenever the approach to God is dominated by epistemological concerns that then pneumatology is weakened, which is demonstrated by the different approaches to baptism and it’s consequences noted previously.
One way of looking at this is that these can be seen as two different “modes” of God, an analogy might be the wave/particle duality of quantum physics. We interact with the one, but cannot reach the other.
The debates between Barlaam and Gregory Palamas contained in the Triads of Gregory Palamas are essentially a debate between the Thomistic monk Barlaam and Palamas (who in his defense of the Eastern practice of hesychasm and the notion of theosis a key component was the essence and energy distinction).
That was great. I’ve always eyed Orthodox Christianity from across the room, nervous that I’d like it too much and nervous that I wouldn’t. Good stuff this post, and you’ve got an enthusiastic reader if you discuss more of it.
All,
Update, reading last night in a summary of the Barlaam/Palamas debates by Meyendorff I found an error. Barlaam was not a Thomist, he was more influenced by the nascent Enlightenment/Reneaissance movements and naturalism, was recoiling from Thomistic versions of rationalism and it’s ways of knowing God and in venturing east was horrified by hesychasm, which in turn gave us the debates.
jpe,
With compliments like that, you’re sure to get what you want. So … look for more.
Thank you for tackling this question for me. I think it has some very meaningful applications to understanding God. I’ll be following up on this on my blog, but after Easter.
God’s blessings on your upcoming chrismation!
Anne/WF
Anne,
As a heads-up, I’m going to be starting a short series (2-3 essays) on the Barlaam/Palamas debate on which the essence/energy question is key.
> it allows for God’s immanent being to
> be ‘incomprehensible’ and truly beyond history
> and creation.
How does this play against the new creation? We are first born of the earth, earthy, but in Christ we are changed – we are made spiritual as Christ is spiritual. Our essence is supplemented with His, making us able to commune with Him directly, essentially, no?
codepoke,
I’m sorry I didn’t comment earlier. I need to use reference material to dig up a response to this question. I’ll get back to it tonight.
That’s cool. I’ll turn on the email flag, and see how that works.
codepoke,
We do not communicate with God’s essence, God’s essence is eternal, unchanging and unknowable. He makes his self known via his energies, his will. Of which a primary example is via Christ’s becoming human. When, according to Palamas argument vs Barlaam, the heyschast (or other person is Graced with His presence) it is by act of God’s will (his energia) that this occurs.
Joh 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
1Co 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly *; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
2Co 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
I understand your position, but I ask you to consider that the very essence of man is changed into something truly spiritual when he is born from heaven.
codepoke,
Man’s essence (and will/energies) are never thought to be unchanging. I’m not sure I understand what you’re driving at.