I am called by two names, human and divine

Symeon the New Theologian is known for his mysticism of divine light and his constant preoccupation with the theme of perfection. This chapter first examines this preoccupation, specifically his opposition to what is dubbed ‘the heresy of mediocrity’. In order to live up to the name, every Christian, for Symeon, must be oriented towards the fullness of perfection. This chapter highlights the unmistakably Christocentric form this perfection takes in Symeon, emphasizing in particular his tendency to transpose the language of Byzantine Christological dogma (Christ as one person in two natures, energies, and wills) into the arena of human perfection. The strong correlation between Symeon’s understanding of the incarnate Christ and his understanding of the human ideal towards which all must strive is the chief focus of this chapter.

Perpetual progress or eternal rest?

The idea of perpetual progress or epektasis has become a popular way to characterize the Byzantine and Orthodox approach to eschatology, whereby the human being forever stretches out in an unending ascent into God. Gregory of Nyssa is taken as the chief architect of this approach, but Maximus the Confessor is also frequently marshalled to the same cause. This chapter questions the applicability of epektasis to the theology of Maximus, and further challenges the hegemony of this idea as a general shorthand for the Byzantine and Orthodox view of eschatology. Without denying its presence as a component of Byzantine eschatological discourse, the far more prevalent interest in rest/stasis is brought out through an examination of Maximus’s eschatology. This is connected with the view that what is true of Christ’s humanity becomes true of the humanity of the saints by grace, and Christ’s enthroned humanity is no longer subject to growth or progress.

Conclusion

The Conclusion is written in two parts. The first offers a twelfth-century Byzantine Christological debate as a lens through which to understand the varied findings of the preceding chapters. This is the little-studied ‘my Father is greater than I’ controversy, one which it is argued ultimately revolves around the nature of Christ’s humanity. The discussion of this controversy is in turn related to the results of earlier chapters. The second part brings the cumulative findings of the book into conversation with the Christocentric theological anthropology of the contemporary Orthodox patrologist and theologian John Behr, identifying areas of agreement but also disagreement. The Conclusion ends with a reiteration of the book’s central claim regarding the importance of the doctrine of Christ’s humanity for the articulation of an Orthodox theological anthropology that is faithful to its Byzantine inheritance.

Perfection before our eyes

The connection between the humanity of Christ and the pursuit of human perfection lies at the heart of this chapter on the theology of Theodore the Studite. The case is made that while Theodore is often overlooked as a theological thinker, this is regrettable, and that in particular on the issue of Christ’s humanity he has much to offer. Bringing together Theodore’s detailed dogmatic defence of icons (specifically icons of Christ) and his ascetic or pastoral thought, it is argued that both form a cohesive whole held together by a strong devotion to the continuing particularity and specificity of Christ’s humanity. It is only through recognition of, and devotion to, the concrete humanity of Christ that human perfection can be accessed for Theodore. He considers it a perfection to be appropriated above all not through the flight of the hermit, but through the workaday life of the monastic coenobium.

The energy of deification and the person of Jesus Christ in St Gregory Palamas

Gregory Palamas’s defence of human perfection and deification through the dogmatic distinction between divine essence and divine energy sparked a theological controversy that continues into the present day. One of the charges laid against Palamas is that he introduces divine energies as another mediator between humanity and God, effectively replacing the mediation of Christ in the process. This chapter argues that such a charge is fundamentally flawed and reflects a deep misunderstanding of Palamas’s theology. Through a close reading of his seminal Triads and other texts, it is shown that Palamas’s approach to human knowledge and experience of God (which culminates in deification), far from sidelining the person of Christ, places him at its heart; without the Incarnate Christ, no access to human perfection is conceivable for Palamas.

Human perfection in Orthodox theological anthropology

This chapter deals first with the question of methodology in Orthodox theology, offering an explanation and defence of the increasingly controversial neo-patristic synthesis model proposed by Georges Florovsky. This is followed by a discussion of Orthodox theological anthropology, beginning with a plea for a Christocentric approach. An outline of modern Orthodox theological anthropology is then offered, with an emphasis on theological personalism (represented by John Zizioulas, Christos Yannaras, and others) and its place within larger personalist movements. Debates regarding the meaning of the term ‘hypostasis’ or person in the patristic and Byzantine sources form part of this discussion. Finally, the importance of deification and the impact of the concept of ‘Godmanhood’ (or ‘Divine-Humanity’) from Soloviev and Bulgakov is also briefly examined. The chapter ends with another call to focus primarily on the doctrine of Christ in order for Orthodox theological anthropology to develop in creative continuity with its heritage.