Energy in Orthodox Theology and Physics

From Controversy to Encounter

Stoyan Tanev

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781532614866
  9781532614880
• eBook ISBN:
  9781532614873
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

It is well known that energy is a fundamental concept in physics. Much less well known is that it is also a key concept in Eastern Christian or Orthodox theology. This book from Dr. Stoyan Tanev--a physicist, innovation management scholar, and theologian--provides a comparative analysis of the conceptualizations of energy in Orthodox theology and in physics, and demonstrates the potential of such comparison for a better understanding of these two quite different domains of human enquiry. The book explores the rediscovery of the Byzantine Church's teaching on the Divine energies in twentieth-century Orthodox theology, and offers new insights about the key contributions of key theologians such as Sergius Bulgakov, George Florovsky, John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, and Thomas Torrance. Where do the understandings of energy in theology and physics meet? The author argues that the encounter between theology and physics happens at the level of quantum physics, where the subtle use of words and language acquires a distinctive apophatic dimension. His comparative approach focuses on the epistemological struggles of theologians and physicists. According to Tanev, this focus on the struggles of knowing offers a new way to look at the dialogue between science and theology.

Part I

Divine Essence, Energy, and the Sophiological Controversy

Chapter 1

Fr. Georges Florovsky and the Rediscovery of the Distinction between Divine Essence and Energies in Modern Orthodoxy

Fr. Georges Florovsky was one of the most prominent Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century.35 Fr. Sergius Bulgakov was the Dean of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris and was the one who invited the young Florovsky to teach Patristics at the Institute.36 He became known for his teaching on the Divine Sophia and in 1930 some of his works were found to be non-Orthodox by the newly formed Synod of the Russian Church abroad and by the Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow. The following developments led to the need for Bulgakov to provide a formal theological clarification. Florovsky was unwillingly involved in these developments and was forced to express his criticism. Going through this experience was painful for both Bulgakov and Florovsky, but the two men remained highly respectful to each other.37 It is, however, evident from their letters to each other that there was a profound disagreement and divergence between their views on the legacy of Soloviev’s philosophy, and specifically, on its inherent sophiological component.

The influence of Soloviev’s philosophy on Bulgakov’s thought seems to have been inspired by his close friendship with Pavel Florensky.38 Florensky was clearly influential in Bulgakov’s return to the faith as well as in his adoption of a specific concept of Sophia, the Wisdom of God.39 It was as a result of Florensky’s influence that Bulgakov took a renewed interest in Soloviev’s theoretical constructions40 and it was in the Unfading Light (1917)41 that Sophia started to emerge as a theological construction somehow in parallel to the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity to become a cornerstone in his philosophical worldview and theology.42

According to A. Klimoff, Florovsky viewed Soloviev’s influence on Russian intellectual history as “unequivocally pernicious.”43 This statement however should not be interpreted in a simplistic one-sided way. Florovsky was fully aware of the evolution of Soloviev’s thought and had perhaps his own evolution in interpreting Soloviev’s works and role as a Russian religious thinker.44 For example, in his early publications, Florovsky defended Soloviev as a genuine voice of Orthodox catholicity promoting a genuine synthesis of faith and understanding.45 He significantly revised however his judgment by the early 1920s, distinguishing sharply his own conception of synthesis from Soloviev’s synthesis of All-Unity.46 Florovsky pointed out that while Soloviev’s earlier philosophy of All-Unity was marked by a certain pantheism and Gnosticism, his Tale of the Antichrist47 represented a second metaphysic in Soloviev’s thought, which could be considered as a philosophy of miracle and struggle. According to Fr. Matthew Baker, “Florovsky contrasts two syntheses: the pan-logism of Soloviev’s synthesis of All-Unity, and the new synthesis suggested by the ‘Tale of the Anti-Christ,’ grounded on the vision of the historic Christ.”48 For Fr. Matthew this is a clear indication that Florovsky’s own neo-patristic synthesis took its starting point precisely where he thought Soloviev’s last vision left off.

In spite of Florovsky’s subtlety in interpreting the works of Soloviev, he considered Bulgakov’s sophiology (which he saw as strongly influenced by Soloviev’s philosophy of All-Unity) as an unnecessary and, actually, a dangerous attempt to develop a philosophically-driven, non-patristic alternative of the Christian teaching on creation ex nihilo and the Trinitarian relationship between God, man, and the world. He remained deeply respectful towards Bulgakov, but passionately, although not personally, rejected his most fundamental ideas as wrong and harmful to the Church.49 Interestingly, in this indirect debate with Bulgakov it was not the understanding of Sophia but its implication for the Christian dogma on creation out of nothing that emerged as the real stumbling block. Bulgakov addressed the doctrine of creation from a sophiological point of view. Florovsky, addressed the doctrine of creation within the context of his “neo-patristic” synthesis by focusing on the distinction between Divine essence and will and, respectively, between Divine essence and energies. By doing so he contributed to the rediscovery of the teaching on the Divine essence and energies and provided a theological reflection that became the source of the key Orthodox theological themes in the twentieth century. In this sense, “one cannot really understand Florovsky’s ‘neo-patristic’ synthesis without understanding that in the background lurks Bulgakov,”50 i.e., Florovsky’s theology, including his first emphasis on the relevance of the distinction between Divine essence and energy, was articulated in opposition to Bulgakov’s thought.

It should be pointed out therefore that the key reason for the rediscovery of the teaching of the Divine essence and energies was (as it was in the middle of the fourteenth century) deeply theological. This fact seems to be currently diluted by arguments about the existence of special personal motives of the Russian émigré theologians in Paris in the 1920s who were trying to build a unique theological identity within the context of their new non-Orthodox cultural environment. Without any doubt, such motives might have had some relevance. However, as we shall see, the theological issues were the key reason for the need to recapture the theology of St. Gregory Palamas.

In fact, it was Bulgakov’s specific (non-patristic) interpretation that forced Fr. George Florovsky to engage in reaffirming the place of St. Gregory “within mainline patristic tradition, in this sense refuting Bulgakov’s claim that St. Gregory can be seen as one of the originators of Sophiology.”51 Bulgakov’s reading of St. Gregory Palamas was driven by a very specific context—his commitment to provide a theological defense for the Name-Worshipers at the Russian Church Council of 1917–18. The Name-Worshipers were Russian monks on Mount Athos that were associated with a controversy (1912–13) due to their claim that the name of God was God Himself. The monks believed that they follow the theology of St. Gregory Palamas. This belief was expressed for the first time by Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich (1870–1919), who wrote an Apology of Faith in the Name of God and the Name Jesus,52 which was distributed at first in lithographic form and later printed in St. Petersburg (1913) with the help of Fr. Pavel Florensky and M. A. Novoselov. As it appears, it was Fr. Pavel Florensky who was the first among Russian clergymen and intellectuals to pay a closer attention (through the discussions with Anthony Bulatovich) to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas.53 According to T. Sénina, Anthony Bulatovich learned about the theology of St. Gregory Palamas most probably from the Russian scholar of Byzantine studies Ivan Ivanovich Sokolov54 who in 1911 published a review of the recently published book by G. Papamichael dedicated to St. Gregory Palamas: Ὁ ἅγιος Γρηγόριος Παλαμᾶς ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Θεσσαλονίκης.55 According to N. Pavlyuchenkov however, the rediscovery of Palamite theology and the teaching on the distinction between essence and energies should be clearly attributed to Fr. Pavel Florensky,56 and it was from him t...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword: The Distinction between Divine Essence and Energies
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I: Divine Essence, Energy, and the Sophiological Controversy
• Part II: The Encounter between Theology and Physics
• Epilogue
• Bibliography