Who Do I Say That You Are?

Anthropology and the Theology of Theosis in the Finnish School of Tuomo Mannermaa

Schumacher

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2010
• eBook ISBN: 9781498271585
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

The question of what it means to be a human creature lies at the heart of contemporary wrestling with anthropology, and especially anthropology from a theological perspective. Through both historical and systematic engagement with the so-called Finnish school of Tuomo Mannermaa, this study explores and assesses the anthropological dimension of their theology of theosis, or deification. Mannermaa initiated a minor revolution in Luther studies and in contemporary Lutheran theology by interpreting Luther's doctrine of justification to be a close analog to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis, but his ecumenical interests led him to minimize or overlook key themes in Luther and sharp distinctions between Luther and Orthodox theologians. Mannermaa's colleague Simo Peura then developed this thesis with specific reference to anthropology in a way reminiscent of the sixteenth-century reformer Andreas Osiander. On closer inspection, the project of Mannermaa and his Finnish colleagues fails to understand adequately both Luther's sources and his own theological development. In this study, a theological anthropology which is more consistent with Luther's theology is developed, an anthropology which is determined by God's address to his human creatures: what God himself says we are, and what he makes us by that word. Such an answer to the anthropological question refuses to flee from creation but instead upholds the complex and paradoxical nature of human beings as creatures, sinners, and saints.

1

Theosis and Luther Studies

The Finnish School of Tuomo Mannermaa

Ecumenical Foreground, Patristic Background

The theosis studies of Tuomo Mannermaa and his school have developed in a decidedly ecumenical context. In recent decades there have been significant discussions between the Orthodox churches and churches in the western tradition, including the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans. Such discussions have resulted in greater awareness in the West of the theological distinctives of the Orthodox tradition, and in a general revival of interest in the theology and worship life of Orthodoxy.1 Certain anthropological and soteriological elements of the eastern theological tradition are particularly important as background for understanding the concerns and the approach of Mannermaa and the Finnish school. This is true because Finnish theologians, and Mannermaa in particular, have been involved in ecumenical discussions with the Russian Orthodox Church since the 1970’s, and this ecumenical context has helped to shape Mannermaa’s new approach to the study of Luther’s theology.

Theosis, or deification, always prominent in the eastern tradition, has become a key concept in relationships between eastern and western Christendom, and this phenomenon crosses specific confessional lines. The Roman Catholic openness to the eastern tradition may be observed in various aspects of the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, which makes frequent and deliberate use of categories generally associated with eastern Orthodoxy, notably the patristic language of deification.2 The theological approach of the Catechism of the Catholic Church illustrates the broader trend in contemporary ecumenical discussions to focus on the theology of the ancient church fathers. As churches seek not only mutual understanding but theological convergence, patristic theology serves as the point of departure for building consensus.3

For some Lutheran scholars, this has meant investigating the patristic roots of the theology of Martin Luther. Wolfgang Bienert has helped identify some specific aspects of patristic theology that are to be found in Luther’s own theological works, and he has also pointed to some of the limitations of Luther’s patristic sources, which came to him filtered through the framework of medieval Augustinianism.4 As Bienert points out, “The ecumenical dialog between Lutherans and Orthodox has given important impulses to the study of patristics.”5 One of the scholars in Mannermaa’s Finnish school, Jouko Martikainen, has attempted to document Luther’s relationship to the patristic tradition of the Eastern Church, especially in formulating his Christology.6 Martikainen’s point of departure is the assumption that “Luther’s theology has a certain nearness to eastern theology.” This leads him to look for parallels (and possible influence) not only in major church fathers such as Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil the Great, but also in much less well-known figures like Julian of Halicarnassus (one of the disputants in the monophysite aphthartodocetic controversy) and the Syrian sage Aphraates. Bernhard Lohse prefers the term “common Christian heritage” rather than “tradition of the church” in his exploration of Luther’s knowledge and use of patristic theology. That choice of terms reflects the ecumenical significance of the Reformation attitude toward, and use of, the church fathers. As Lohse shows, Luther was quite familiar and critically engaged with at least some of the fathers. The priority, for Luther and his contemporaries, lies especially with Augustine, but Lohse mentions also Luther’s use of Jerome, Gregory I, Bernard of Clairvaux, and William of Ockham.7 A number of other studies testify to the wide interest in the thematic and historical connections between the theology of the Reformation and that of the ancient fathers, especially as the basis for efforts toward ecumenical understanding.8

This ecumenical interest in the theological heritage of the ancient fathers as it relates to the Reformation provides an important element for understanding the theology of Tuomo Mannermaa and the other scholars of the Finnish school. They have been interested primarily in the doctrine of justification, which of course is also the central concern of Luther and the Reformation. What the Finnish school attempts to do is to concentrate on the theme of theosis, or deification, especially as it occurs in Luther’s writings. For Mannermaa and others, the appearance in Luther’s theological works of this typically eastern motif serves an ecumenical function: it provides a point of contact for theological discussion between the Lutherans and the Orthodox. Mannermaa has led the way in re-exploring the theology of Martin Luther in search of themes and ideas which may serve as meaningful points of contact with Orthodox theology. He and others have proposed that there are strong parallels between the Orthodox doctrine of theosis (deification) and the Lutheran doctrine of justification, particularly what they identify as Luther’s ontological view of the union of the believer with Christ.9 In fact, the motivation seems to work both ways: just as the contemporary ecumenical contacts have urged closer study of the reformers’ appropriation of patristic themes (as explicitly in Jouko Martikainen’s work mentioned earlier), so also scholars who have noticed Luther’s use of the church fathers have, as a result, become interested in how those patristic themes have been developed elsewhere in Christendom.

Even apart from the ecumenical utility of such studies, Tuomo Mannermaa argues that pursuing theosis as a theme in Luther research can help Lutherans themselves recover an important dimension of the reformer’s theology that has been neglected in Luther studies. In particular, with reference to the doctrine of justification, Mannermaa believes that the “mainstream” of Luther scholarship has focused too narrowly on what he refers to as the forensic or “ethical-relational” dimension of justification. His assessment of the dominant currents of Luther research over the last century is that the relational conception of justification has been emphasized at the expense of the real-ontological character of Luther’s own theology. Mannermaa’s program of theological investigation thus pursues its ecumenical interests by seeking to recover what he considers to be a more authentic or genuine Lutheran theology, that is, theology which returns to the insights of Luther himself rather than the theology which came to characterize later generations of Lutheranism. For Mannermaa and those of his school, the “real” Luther is clearly more congenial than, say, the Formula of Concord, which they regard as a one-sided distortion of Luther’s own teaching about justification.

The Meaning of Theosis in Orthodox Theology

The idea of theosis is as foreign to western theology, or at least to Lutheran theology, as it is familiar to Orthodoxy. Western readers generally need a more precise explanation of the term and its implications, for at least two basic reasons. First, for western Christians the strangeness of the notion of theosis may result in a distorted caricature of the Orthodox doctrine rather than a nuanced understanding of the real theological issues involved. A critical theological engagement with the soteriology and anthropology that are entailed in the theosis theme will require a more detailed knowledge of what is for most westerners at the very least an unfamiliar modus loquendi. Secondly, and more directly related to our immediate concern to under...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Theosis and Luther Studies
• Chapter 2: More Than a Man?
• Chapter 3: Theosis in Luther’s Theology?
• Chapter 4: Anthropology in the Lutheran Confessions
• Conclusion: Anthropology and the Object of Faith
• Bibliography