Reception of Analogy of Being in Contemporary Eastern Orthodox Theology

290

Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 56, Number 3 • Fall 2017 • September

Outside the Theme

Reception of Analogy of Being in Contemporary Eastern Orthodox Theology By Oleg Davydov Abstract: This article examines the relationship between the analogy of being (which is a fundamental

principle of Catholic theology and metaphysics) and the most significant contemporary Eastern Orthodox theolog theologian ians. s. This This questio question n of analogy analogy touches touches upon the fundam fundament ental al theolog theologica icall proble problem m of the concep conceptua tualiz lizati ation on of the relati relations onship hip betwee between n God and creat creation ion.. Even Even though though there there is no analog analogyy in Eastern Orthodox theology, it has two polar positions regarding Western analogy of being—pro and con. Key Terms: analogy of being, Eastern Orthodox theology, ontology, creation

Renewal of Interest in Analogia Entis The turbulent turbulent and changing changing intellectua intellectuall atmosphere atmosphere of our times opens opportunities for the realization of certain certain theolo theologic gical al ways ways of thinki thinking, ng, ways ways that were disregarded during previous centuries. The existent istential ial human human needs needs of underst understand anding ing our own own fait faith h rise rise agai again, n, seeki seeking ng out out the trea treasu sure ress of the the fruitfu fruitfull theolog theologica icall tradit tradition ionss of the past. past. In this this article, I demonstrate that one significant example of this trend is the renewal of theological interest in the issue of the analogy of being (analogia being (analogia entis). In the Christ Christian ian metaphy metaphysic sical al tradit tradition ion of the Middle Ages, which was rooted in the theology of

the church fathers, the analogy of being is understood as the ambivalent correlation between the acts of creaturely beings and the transcendent infinity of God’ God’s being. being. Prope Properly rly underst understood ood,, the analogy analogy of being being gives gives one reason reason to believ believee that individua individuall creatu creaturel relyy existen existence ce is goo good, d, true, true, and beautif beautiful. ul. Consequently, the analogy of being consists of two sides sides that includ includee relati relations onship hipss betwee between n the CreCreator and creation on the metaphysical level—thus becoming an area of interest for both theology and philosophy. It is a well-known fact that the early modern secular rebellion against theology destroyed the dominance of Christian theological tradition in favor of mechanistic and positivistic philosophies. However, this did not happen by itself, and the source of the distortion of the Christian tradition is a result of

Oleg B. Davydov, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia. His current research project is about the development of modern Eastern Orthodox philosophical theology.

Reception of Analogy of Being in Contemporary Eastern Orthodox Theology • Oleg Davydov

the rise rise of theolog theologica icall and philos philosoph ophica icall nomina nominallism, which took shape during the scholastic debates of the late Middle Ages. The goal of nominalists was the criticism of the scholastic principle of the analogy of being as an ontolo ontologic gical al princi principle ple of the relati relations onship hip between between the world and God: “When John Duns Scotus eschew chewed ed the the anal analog ogyy of bein beingg in favo favorr of univo univoccity, ity, the natura naturall theolog theologyy he champi champione oned d failed failed to preserve the ontological difference between Creator and creation defended by both Eastern and Western Church Church Fathe Fathers rs and schola scholasti stics. cs.””1 As a result of the transformation of these complex theological and philosophical landscapes, the importance of the analogy of being has been lost. Charac Character terist istica ically lly,, the twenti twentieth eth century century was a time of revival of theological interest in the analogy of being. Some Catholic theologians attempted to overcome the divide between grace and nature, as was posited by Vatican I doctrine in the nineteenth century. They wanted to present a view that divine grace and creaturely nature cannot be understood as two separate orders, but rather intrinsically belong to each other. One example of this rebirth of interest was the famous famous discus discussio sion n betwee between n Karl Karl Barth Barth and Erich Erich Przywara about the analogy of being and its role in theology.2 Przyw Przywara ara built his own own concep conceptt of the interpretation of the classical formula of the analogy of being, made in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215: “One cannot note any similarity between Creat Creator or and creatu creature, re, howeve howeverr great, great, withou withoutt being ing comp compel elle led d to obser observe ve an ever ever grea greate terr dissi dissimm3 ilarity ilarity between between them.” Przywara Przywara famously famously named the the anal analog ogyy of being being as a funda fundame ment ntal al Catho Catholi licc form of thought based on the conceptualization of the Fourth Lateran Council. But for Przywara, this analog analogyy consti constitut tutes es not only only theolog theologica icall though thought, t, but but also also an anal analog ogic ical al stru struct ctur uree exist existin ingg in the the depths of every philosophy. The analogy of being is designed to preserve the correc correctt mode mode of a relati relationsh onship ip between between God and creation against all theological or philosophical attempts tempts to confla conflate te them in ontolo ontologic gical al unity unity,, or radi radica call llyy sund sunder er one one from from the the othe otherr. In fact fact,, acaccord cordin ingg the the conc concep eptt of the the anal analog ogyy of bein being, g, all all creatures are directed to God, in whom they fully partic participa ipate. te. On the contra contrary ry,, God stays stays absolut absolute; e;

291

that that is, God is transc transcend endent, ent, existing existing beyond beyond any definition or concept. In other words, the analogy of being is attempting to find a third way beyond both—a united Creator and a creation under the univoc univocal al notion notion of being, being, and the underst understand anding ing that there is no point in comparing them. However, in the clamor of intensive Western theological debates about the question of the analogy of being, there is no place for the third position—a position that could offer a new view of this significant problem. Therefore, here I introduce two opposing theological perspectives regarding this analogy, both of which exist in contemporary Orthodox theology.

David Bradshaw The original view of the problem of the connection to the analogy of being was given by American Orthodox thodox theologian theologian David Bradshaw. Bradshaw. Outlining Outlining his views on the teaching of Aquinas, Bradshaw, echoing most Orthodox criticisms, says that the analogy of being reduces the apophatic language of Dionysus sus to a mere merely ly seman semanti ticc metho method d of theo theolo logi gica call 4 language. He constru constructe cted d his own own critic critical al arguargument against the analogy of being as a classical one for the Palamite Palamite Eastern Orthodox essence/energ essence/energy y distin distincti ction on in God, God, which which is unders understoo tood d as more more reli reliab able le than than the the Thomi Thomist stic ic anal analog ogyy of being being for for theology. The next difficulty that Bradshaw saw with the analogy of being is that it is influenced by Greek metaph metaphysi ysics, cs, and the unders understan tandin dingg that that the relarelationship between Creator and creature is similar to the platon platonic ic relati relations onship hip betwee between n ideas ideas and matematerial. The positive aspect of Bradshaw’s interpretation of the analogy of being is that it includes the idea of ontological participation. Bradshaw writes: “This participation is not static relation, in the meaning of Plato, but dynamic process or synergy.” 5 Thus, we can see how a dynamic rethinking of the participative ipative relationshi relationship p between between Creator Creator and creation, creation, that is, the structure of the analogy of being principl ciple, e, can can narr narrow ow the gap gap betw between een Cath Cathol olic ic and and Orthodox understandings.

292


John Romanides Different critical interpretations of the analogy inform contemporary Greek Orthodox scholar John John Romanides, who expresses a sharp critique of the principle of the analogy of being. He touches upon the problem of the analogy of being in his book The Ancestra Ancestrall Sin, where Sin, where he rejects the analogy of being together with the analogy of faith as a Western distortion of tradition. 6 In an earl earlie ierr publ public icat atio ion n abou aboutt the Catho Catholi licc anal analog ogyy of bein beingg prin princi cipl ple, e, he conc conclu lude ded d that that:: “There is no similarity between God and creations. And, since there is no similarity, similarity, it means that ther theree is no simi simila lari rity ty betw betwee een n the the crea create ted d and and 7 the uncreated.” uncreated.” This This posi positi tion on is base based d upon upon a distin distincti ction on betwee between n Western estern theolog theologyy, which which has been strong strongly ly influe influence nced d by Greek Greek philos philosoph ophica icall meta metaph phys ysic ics, s, and and East Easter ern n Orth Orthod odox oxyy, whic which h is free free of this this negati negative ve influe influence nce.. Romani Romanides des thinks thinks that that Weste estern rn theo theolo logy gy from from Augus ugusti tine ne unti untill today is dangerously dangerously mixed with philosophy. philosophy. This possibility did not emerge in the East because the Gree Greekk fathe fathers rs stre stress ssed ed that that ther theree is no simi simila lari rity ty or correl correlati ation on between between creati creations ons and Creato Creatorr, an aspect of the analogy of being. Sympto Symptomat matica ically lly,, Romani Romanides des is positi positive ve about about the nominalist revolt against the Thomistic analogy of being and presents William Occam as an important figure: “He launched a general attack against Plato’s archetypes; in other words, against the Univers versal alia ia of Plat Platon onic ic trad tradit itio ion, n, with with very very powe powerrful arguments and almost abolished the preceding Platonic supporters of Western tradition, thus instigating a severe crisis in Western Theology.” 8 Thus, we can see how the anti-analogical rhetoric of Orthodox thodox theologians theologians reiterated reiterated nominalist nominalist polemical polemical ideas with no originality.

Christos Yannaras One of the most profound theologians who gives much much atte attent ntio ion n to the the anal analog ogyy of bein beingg is well well--

known Orthodox scholar, Christos Yannaras. A distinc tincti tive ve feat featur uree of Yanna annara rass is how how he enter enterss an open dialogue with the main foci of modern philosophy. He draws a distinction between the modern understanding of the human as an autonomous individual and the Orthodox understanding of the person as a relational entity. Yannaras finds the ontolo tologi gica call basi basiss for for such such an unde unders rsta tand ndin ingg in the the Palamite difference between divine essence and divine energy. Yannaras Yannaras uses a personalist interpretation of human existen existence ce aga agains instt the essenti essentiali alizat zation ion and ob jectification of the essence, which he finds in the schola scholasti sticc analog analogyy of being. being. Yannara annarass thinks thinks that that know knowle ledg dgee of God God is not not a resu result lt of one’ one’ss own own intell intellect ectual ual or ration rational al though thought, t, but an existe existenti ntial al event of participation in grace: “Thus beings, as a resu result lt of divi divine ne will will that that is acti active ve outs outsid idee divi divine ne ‘essence,’ do not have any absolute reference to the divine divine ‘essence essence’’ itself itself,, and for that that reason reason knowlknowledge of God is impossible on the basis of the analogy of being (analogia (analogia entis).” entis).”9 Thus, the analogical way of knowing God is fully closed for Yannaras, becaus becausee human human beings beings are only only passiv passivee recipi recipient entss of the divine message about God. This is another varian variantt of extrem extremee theolog theologica icall agn agnost ostici icism sm arisin arising g from from a bad interp interpret retati ation on of the well-i well-inten ntentio tioned ned effort effort to protec protectt the essenc essencee of the transc transcend endenc encee of God. Yannaras Yannaras develops his critique of the analogy in a more detailed manner in his later book titled Person and Eros. A personalist approach to the analogy of being can illuminate its philosophical character, which cannot be accepted in theology: “Scholastic analog analogyy ignore ignoress the person personali alist st existen existence ce of God, God, the Trinity rinity of the divine divine person persons, s, the person personali alist st 10 way of being of the divine essence.” Analogical ways of thinking are a way to relate the human pers person on to the the pers person on of God, God, and and this this path path is strict strictly ly existe existenti ntial, al, not formal formal or univer universal salist istic, ic, as in schola scholasti sticc ration rationali alism. sm. Only Only persona personalis listt otherotherness ness is the the true true othe otherne rness ss for for Yanna annara ras, s, but but the the “ever ever great greater” er” of the Latera Lateran n formul formulaa of analog analogy y is only the otherness of things, that is, not clear otherness but: “It is obvious that in this formula unli unlike kene ness ss does does not not rela relate te to the pers person onal al mode mode of existen existence ce of otherne otherness: ss: unlike unlikenes nesss coexis coexists ts with with


similar in quantitative comparison to the measured values objectified objectified.” .”11 Obvi Obviou ousl slyy, Yanna annara rass oppo opposes ses the the meth method od of comparable comparable analogue analogue of dissimilar dissimilar similarity similarity,, suggest gestin ingg that that Wester estern n theol theolog ogyy is Aris Aristo tote teli lian an,, whereas Eastern is Platonic. However, However, such a onesided interpretati interpretation on does not correspond correspond to the reality of the analogy as a principle of being. For example, Przywara indicates that the theological analogy of being is understood only as a first step, and the second is an aspiration to the absolute transcendent God.

John Zizioulas If Yannar annaras as give givess a pers person onal alis istt inte interp rpre reta tati tion on of the analogy, it was developed further by John D. Zizioulas. The starting point of Zizioulas’s theology, as with that of most Orthodox theologians, is the ontology ontology of personhood, personhood, which opposes the scholastic ontolo ontology gy of essence essence.. In the theolo theologic gical al system system of Zizioulas, the concept of the person plays a central tral role, role, becaus becausee a person person “has “has unique unique refere referenti ntial al potential in that it can span both domains—it constitutes a primordial ontological and thus semantic bridge bridge betwee between n the theolog theologica icall and anthro anthropol pologi ogi-12 cal spheres.” spheres.” The The onto ontolo logy gy of the the pers person on is a form form of expres expressio sion n of the differ differenc ences es betwee between n the persons of the divine Trinity, which is not a sum of relational individuals but pure communion, and expre express sses es the the rela relati tion onal al natur naturee of the the huma human n being, ing, whic which h can can trul trulyy exis existt only only in the the form form of person. Accordingly, Accordingly, the supreme principle of this ontolo tology gy beco become mess abso absolu lute te other otherne ness, ss, whic which h is designed signed to replac replacee the metaphy metaphysic sical al immanen immanence ce of the Western estern tradit tradition ion.. Theolo Theologic gical al ontolo ontology gy conconnects with personalist personalist ontology, ontology, which, which, unlike the philosophical ontology of substance, provides space for authentic distinctions on the basis of an absolute otherness of Creator toward the creature. Accordin cordingly gly,, the apopha apophatic tic method method of speech speech about about God, who is beyond being, may be supplemented by the cataphatic question of creation that is close to God.

293

I claim that the relational ontology of Zizioulas intersects with the analogy of being. In his book, Being Being Communi Communion: on: Studi Studies es in Personh ersonhood ood and the Church, Church, Zizioulas claims that Western theology and philosophy lose the meaning of personhood because of their over-identification with substance, that is, essentialization. The negative result of this was that the the West est lost lost the the mean meanin ingg of pers person onho hood od and and being. In opposi oppositio tion n to this this loss, loss, Easter Eastern n Orthod Orthodoxy oxy has has reta retain ined ed its its unde unders rsta tand ndin ingg of the the abso absolu lute te rela relati tion onal al natu nature re of pers person ons, s, whic which h is not not conconnect nected ed to a stat static ic onto ontolo logy gy of subs substa tanc nce. e. Thus Thus we can call this interpretation of personal being a “rela relati tion onal al anal analog ogyy.” For Zizi Ziziou oula las, s, “to be” is paradoxically identified with “to be relational.” 13 If Zizioulas wanted to exchange the static substantial ontology of the West for the relational, analogical tradition of the East, he could give his own interpretation of the relationship. It works because the concept of the analogy of being describes nothing but relati relations onship hips, s, which which belong belong to the existe existenti ntial al nature of created beings and exist only in relation to God. God. Thus Thus,, foll follow owin ingg Bart Barth, h, Zizi Ziziou oula lass uses uses dyna dynami micc anal analog ogic ical al rela relati tion onss inst instea ead d of a stat static ic underst understand anding ing of the analog analogyy of being, being, which, as he claimed, can be more useful for contemporary theological goals.

Nikolaos Ludovikos Another Greek Orthodox theologian, Nikolaos Ludovikos, discusses the analogy of being in comparison with ideas from one of the most influential church fathers, Maximus the Confessor. In Orthodox theology, the question of the analogy of being finds parallels in the question of the participation of creatures in the Creator. Ludovikos demonstrates that that for Maximu Maximuss the foundat foundation ion of the relati relationonship between God and the world is dialogical, but for for Thom Thomas as it is emana emanati tion onal al.. Anal Analog ogyy in MaxMaximus, Areopagite, and Palmas is the expression of dialogical relationships or a synergetic participation between creation and Creator.

294


This Orthodox theology “refuses any kind of an ontological analogy between God and creation except for the analogy between the divine logos of a being being and a possib possibili ility ty of partic participa ipatio tional nal respon response se 14 to it.” Thus, analogy for Ludovikos is not a passive structure, but a dynamic relationship of gracefilled filled partici participat pation ion of creatu creatures res in divine divine nature nature.. The main purpose of this analogy is synergistic dialogic alogical al recipr reciproci ocity ty,, in which which beings beings come come into into a community between themselves and God. Speaking about the Thomistic understanding of the the analo analogy gy of bein being, g, Ludo Ludovi viko koss note notess that that this this refers not to divine energies, but to divine essence. In this this onto ontolo logi gica call disp dispos osit itio ion, n, the the crea creati tion on depend pendss upon upon a Creat Creator or as its its effic efficie ient nt and and exem exem-plary cause. Also, creatures become only a passive refl reflec ecti tion on of divi divine ne grac grace. e. Howe Howeve verr, if we thin think k about God in ontological terms as cause and effect, or as the higher source of all beings, we do not understand understand true participato participatory ry relationshi relationships, ps, which constitute constitute the analogy analogy. By contrast, contrast, the Orthodox Orthodox vision vision saves saves possib possibili ilitie tiess for the efficac efficacyy and freefreedom dom of creat created ed being beings, s, whic which h is neede needed d for for true true synergetic participation and answers no divine call: “The fact that we cannot define (or confine) creativeness as the static essence, does not mean that it consists of an undifferentiated reflection of God’s grace.”15 Our main main ontolo ontologic gical al problem problem born born from from this this view is that created nature is a passive reflection of divine divine being being withou withoutt active active partic participa ipatio tion n and diadialogue with God. Creation in the analogy of being becomes just a passive replication of God’s essence. In the Thomistic Thomistic perspective perspective,, synergetic synergetic participaparticipation of creatures in the divine is impossible simply beca becaus usee that that woul would d be the the part partic icip ipat atio ion n of creacreatures in divine essence itself. In fact, said Ludovicos, there is a deep abyss between creature and Creator, or between natural and supernatural, that we find in the Thomis Thomistic tic “passiv passive” e” versio version n of the analogy analogy of being. In sum, the analogy for Ludovikos is not a passive reflection of divine grace in passive creatures, like like in Thom Thomas, as, but but a dial dialog ogue ue with with the the parti partici ci-pation of two active sides—Creator and creations, which needs an actual response to the divine call from this side of creation.

David Bentley Hart Now I describe a unique approach to the analogy of being among Orthodox scholars, that of David Bentley Hart. Hart gives the most positive and sublime lime interp interpret retati ation on of the analog analogyy among among all Orthodox scholars. He personally has done much to revitalize analogical discourse in contemporary theology. Thus, we can describe the theological project that he develops in his book Beauty Beauty of Infinite: The Aesthetics of the Christian Truth as a great Orthodox meditation about the analogy of being. 16 Hart brilliantly uses an Eastern Orthodox tradition, specifically the theology of Gregory of Nyssa and his conception of the infinite self-overcoming of creatures on their way to God, to develop an analogy of being in a critical dialogue with the most influential influential examples of modern secular philosophies philosophies.. Like Like his closest closest colleagu colleaguee in the radica radicall orthoorthodoxy doxy movemen movement, t, John John Milban Milbank, k, Hart Hart partic participa ipates tes in an ambitious project to revive analogical metaphysic physicss aga agains instt univoc univocal al though thoughts ts on being. being. Hart Hart also also incl includ udes es in his his proj projec ectt the the idea ideass of some some Roman Roman Cathol Catholic ic theolo theologia gians ns like like Przyw Przywara ara.. Hart Hart started a revival of the classic interpretation of the analogia entis of the Fourth Lateran Council against a neo-Thomistic understanding of it. Like Like Hart, Hart, in his theolog theologica icall projec project, t, Milba Milbank nk tries to update the analogy of being by pointing out that that as opposed opposed to univoc univocal al interp interpret retati ation, on, which which is not a ration rationall allyy justif justified ied allega allegatio tion n so much much as an existential choice or volitional decision, the axiomatic assumption based on the belief that there cannot be harmonious mediation between identity and difference. “Philosophically speaking, univocity is only one possible reading of the ontological difference between Being and beings. It represents an existential orientation more than does any conclusive mode of argument.” 17 Hart Hart provid provides es a perspe perspecti ctive ve diametr diametrica ically lly opposed to most Orthodox theologians’ understanding of the analogy of being. Thus, if Yannaras criticized the principle of the analogy for the essentialization and dissolution of existential differences in the final identity of the essence of God, Hart goes further:


“The analogy of being does not analogize God and creatures under the more general category of being, but is the analogization of being in the difference between God and creatures; it is as subversive of the notion of a general and univocal category of being as of the equall equallyy ‘totali totalizin zing’ g’ notion notion of ontolo ontologic gical al 18 equivocity.” Thus, from Hart’s point of view, it is possible to criticize Yannaras himself for an incorrect notion of the relationship between Creator and creations and the essentialization of personalist equivocity. Howev However er,, althou although gh Hart Hart uses the term term analogy of being, he being, he uses it not only in a repetitive manner, but also creatively changes its normally strict definition for his own theological needs. Deeply involved in the philos philosoph ophica icall debate debate with with secula secularr philos philosoophy phy, Hart Hart uses uses the the prin princi cipl plee of anal analog ogyy to show show infinite infinite transcendenc transcendencee against against the totality totality,, followfollowing the Frenc French h philos philosoph opher er Emanuel Emanuel Levina Levinass and his famous distinction. Accordingly, the analogy of being is the only way to save the real differences between created things, because it relied on the infinite distance between the Creator and the creature, since the similarity is overcome by a never greater dissimilarity. This This is a highly highly fruitful fruitful theolo theologic gical al alterna alternativ tivee to a wide wide swat swath h of thou though ghtt in the the cont contemp empor orary ary theology of God—not in terms of ontological differentiation of all creatures including humans, but in existential or anthropological terms. In this moment we can see the similarity between Hart and Barth, whose rebellion against the “domestication” of the divine is well known.

Beings in Being For his own theological goals, Hart has developed a dynamic view of analogy as a language of participation of creatures in the Creator, or, philosophically ically speaking, speaking, beings in Being. Being. This idea idea is important because Hart’s goal not only is theological, but also critical of philosophical styles of thinking about God, especially especially of Heidegger Heidegger’’s identificati identification on of theology with metaphysics. Hart also rejects the identification of analogy of being with “natural theology,” because it is the last presupposed unbending

295

analogy between beings and Being, that is, univocal being. Analogy for Hart is not a static structure of real realit ityy or a hiera hierarc rchy hy of bein beings gs in the the “neopl neoplaatonic” fashion, but rather the permanent movement of “assimilation” of creatures toward the Creator— pres preserv ervin ingg the the “ever ever grea greate ter” r” dissi dissimi mili litu tude de.. Any Any simili similitud tudee between between creati creation on and Creat Creator or includ includes es ever greater dissimilitude, and this infinite distance or difference makes all beings exist. Everything in its own difference manifests the reality of God in all God’s God’s plentitude plentitude without without the idolatrous idolatrous reduction reduction of God to creature: “It is the simple, infinite movement of analogy that constitutes everything that is as a bein being, g, osci oscill llat atin ingg betw between een essen essence ce and and exisexistence tence and receiv receiving ing both both from from beyond beyond itself itself that that makes makes everyth everything ing already already partici participat pating ing in the return of the gift, the offering of all things by the Spiri Spiritt up into into Fathe Father’ r’ss plenit plenitude ude of being, being, to the 19 Son.” Obvio Obviousl uslyy, betwee between n Hart Hart and Barth Barth there there also also is a greate greaterr dissim dissimila ilarit rityy, locali localized zed strict strictly ly in the question of analogy. Barth famously described analogy as the “interv “intervent ention ion of Antich Antichris rist,” t,” a tool tool of the sinful human mind, which damaged the purity of early early biblic biblical al Christ Christian ianity ity and reduced reduced God to philosophical categories. For this reason, Barth re jects any intervention of philosophy in theology or any kind of natural theology, because theology for Barth is a matter of grace alone. For Hart, contrary to this, the analogy of being is the manifestation of creatures participating in the Divine, which is the only thing that can harmonize human reason and grace. Thus, the rejection of analogy is a rejection of understanding the act of creation—like rejecting grace and love.

Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Hart Hart dire direct ctss his his crit critic icis ism m in the oppo opposi site te dire direcction: tion: the rejection rejection of analog analogyy can be qualif qualified ied as the the fall fall of auth authent entic ic Ch Chri rist stia ian n unde unders rsta tand ndin ingg of bein being. g. Anal Analog ogyy of bein beingg for for Hart Hart is not not only only a fundame fundamenta ntall form form of Christ Christian ian thought thought as it was for for Przy Przywa wara ra,, but but it also also is a nece necessa ssary ry Ch Chri rist stia ian n poin pointt of view view on being being and and being beings, s, hist history ory and and

296


salv salvat atio ion. n. The The anal analog ogyy cons consis ists ts of a trin trinit itar aria ian n structure within dynamic relations between the absolute transcendence of the immanent Trinity and the absolut absolutee immanen immanence ce of the economi economicc Trinity rinity,, which overcomes any dialectical or identical metaphysics of being. 20 If so, when creatures participate in the the Divi Divine ne they they take take part part in the the infi infini nite te dydynamic namic of truth, truth, beauty beauty,, and goo goodnes dness, s, which which are the transcendentals (general concepts) of God.

God s Incomprehensible Darkness ’

“

”

The main aim of this his article was to give an overvi overview ew of how contem contempor porary ary Orthod Orthodox ox theolo theolo-gians think about the analogy of being. Almost all of the aforeme aforementi ntione oned d theolo theologic gical al figure figuress of EastEastern Orthodoxy are engaged in a continuous process of rethinking the traditional Christian metaphysics and relationships between God and creatures. As I demonstrated, the main path of contemporary Eastern Orthodox theology remains mostly polemical in response to Roman Catholic and Protestant theologies. gies. Most Most Easter Eastern n Orthod Orthodox ox theolo theologia gians ns critic criticize ize analogy as a misinterpretation of the early church fathers’ fathers’ theological theological tradition. tradition. Neverthele Nevertheless, ss, despite despite all the misunderstandings and pervasive interpretations tions explor explored ed here, here, analyz analyzing ing these these critiq critiques ues has a positive result for theology, because the struggle between different views always is a reasonable way to develo develop p theoret theoretica icall and practi practical cal develo developme pments nts of the Christian tradition. Among Orthodox theologians, however, however, there is one who has made clear his intent to use the principle of the analogy of being in his own theological projects—David Bentley Hart. Obviously, for Hart, God is not a higher intra-mundane being or only an omnipo omnipoten tentt monarc monarch, h, but absolut absolutely ely transc transcenendent of all created beings and at once the source of all being, which cannot have ordinary relations with created beings: “If being is not susceptible to the interval of the analogy (even though it is an interval of ever greater unlikeness), then God and creation exist in reciprocal real relation to one an-

other other,, which which means means an extrin extrinsic sic relati relation on betwee between n 21 two mutually delimiting objects.” However, interpretations of analogy differ among theologians, each giving his or her own understanding of this important theological theme. Contrary to the fears of Orthodox theologians that analogy establishes equality between creation and the Creator ator, the Latera Lateran n formul formulati ation on of analog analogyy includ includes es “ever greater dissimilarity,” which brings a positive comm commun unit ityy to its its limi limits ts in orde orderr to pres preserv ervee the the “incom “incompr prehen ehensib sible le darkne darkness ss”” of God in Godself Godself,, who is beyond any analogy. analogy. All structure of the Lateran formulation of the analogy of being have intended to include concrete and positive declarations about God with the infinite context of negative theology.

Ecumenical Open-Mindedness Despite many differences and struggles, all theologian gianss must must resp respon ond d to the the same same chal challe leng nges es that that aris arisee as a conse consequ quen ence ce of secul secular ar mode moderni rnity ty.. All All theologians must harmonize the particular tradition to which they are committed with an ecumenical open-mindedness, that is, participating in the resolution of all Christian problems. The East can learn from the West about how to conceptualize the theological experience, but the West can learn from the East about how to retrieve theological metaphysics from the ancient fathers of the church. Theological dialogue between different traditions on such important themes—like analogy of being and the participation of creation in God—will continue, and this will be fruitful and useful for both sides. sides. Con Contin tinued ued intera interacti ction on betwee between n theolog theologian ianss create createss a sphere sphere for common developme development nt in dialogical relations. In fact, all of our traditions have the the shar shared ed task task of work workin ingg toge togeth ther er for the the rerenewa newall of theo theolo logy gy in ways ways that that give give answ answer erss to the the quest questio ions ns of our our unst unstab able le epoc epoch. h. If we conconsider sider that that all of humani humanity ty,, includ including ing every every indiindividu vidual al human human bein being, g, is crea create ted d in the the imag imagee of God, it means that the relations of the analogy of being are real for us. Also, we believe that theological dialogues between our various confessions will


contin continue ue to resolv resolvee common common proble problems ms and open open new horizons of understanding between our common heritages.

297

8. Ibi Ibid., d., 131. 9. Christ Christos os Ya Yannara nnaras, s, On the Absence and Unknowability of God: Heidegger and the Areopagite (London: (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 178. 10. Christos Yannaras, Yannaras, Perso Person n and Er Eros os (Brookline, (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007), 131.

Endnotes 1. Adr Adrian ian Pabst, Pabst, “Wi “Wisdo sdom m and the Art of Po Polit litics ics,” ,” in Encounter between Easte between Eastern rn Ortho Orthodoxy doxy and Radica Radicall Ortho Orthodoxy: doxy: Transfigur Transfiguring ing the World through the Word, eds. Adrian Pabst and Christoph Schneider (Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate, 2009), 115. 2. Niel Nielss Chris Christian tian Nielsen, The Debate between between Karl Barth and Erich Przywara: A New Evaluation of Protestant and Roman Catholic Differences (The Rice Institute Pamphlet) 40, no. 1 (1953): 24-46. 3. Erich Przywar Przywara, a, Analogia Analogia Entis: Metaphysics—Original Structure and Universal Rhythm, trans. Rhythm, trans. John R. Betz and David B. Hart (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014), 355. 4. David Bradshaw, Bradshaw, Arist Aristotle otle East and West: Metap Metaphysicsand hysicsand the Divisi Division on of Christendom Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 5. Ibi Ibid., d., 328. 6. John S. Romanides, Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, trans. trans. Georg Georgee S. Gabri Gabriel el (Ridgewood, New Jersey: Zephyr Publications, 2002). 7. John John S. Rom Romani anides des,, Patristic Patristic Theolo Theology gy (Thessaloniki, (Thessaloniki, Gree Greece: ce: Parakatatheke Publications, 2004), 129.

11. Ibi Ibid., d., 232. 12. Alan J. Torra orrance, nce, Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation (London: Participation (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010), 121. 13. John D. Zizioulas, Zizioulas, Being Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary, 1997), 82. 14. Nikol Nikolaos aos A. Ludo Ludovikos, vikos, Eucha Eucharistic ristic Ontology: Maximus the Con fessor’s Eschatological Ontology of Being as Dialogical Reciprocity (Brookline, (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross. 2010), 218. 15. Ibi Ibid., d., 226. 16. David Bentley Bentley Hart, The Hart, The Bea uty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of the Christian Truth ruth (Grand (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004). 17. John Milbank, Milbank, Theology Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason Secular Reason (Cambridge, U.K.: Blackwell, 1990), 50. 18. David Bentley Bentley Hart, The Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, 241-242. 19. Ibi Ibid., d., 245. 20. David Bentley Hart, “The Destin Destinyy of Chris Christian tian Metaphysics: Metaphysics: Reflectionss on the Analogia Entis,” in The Analogy of Being: Invention of Reflection the Antichrist or Wisdom of God?, ed. T.J. White (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 395-410. 21. Ibi Ibid., d., 398.

Reception of Analogy of Being in Contemporary Eastern Orthodox Theology

Recommend Documents