The Ecumenical Potential of the Eastern Doctrine of Theosis: Emerging convergences in Lutheran and Free Church Soteriologies

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Dr.Theol., Habil.

Introduction

     One of the abiding tasks of the Eastern Orthodox tradition has been to keep alive the patristic doctrine of deification (theosis, Vergöttlichung). In fact, the idea of a man/woman becoming a god is far more than just a theological locus in the East, it is an overarching principle which permeates all of Eastern theology[1] and spirituality.  

     As is well known, Reformation theology has had a hard time in trying to reconcile the idea of theosis with the doctrine of justification.  Historically, these two traditions have been considered to be diametrically opposed to each other.[2]  A corollary problem is that - at least for Lutherans - the Eastern soteriology entertains problematic notions of the freedom of will, too positive an anthropology, and, worst of all, the idea of human-divine synergia in salvation.[3] 

     When it comes to the Free Churches,[4] currently the fastest growing segment of theChristian Church - and therefore a fitting dialogue partner to the Eastern Church along with the Lutherans -,  there are some unexpected convergences emerging.  One might even contend that had not the Free Churches adopted the doctrine of justification in its Reformation form, Free Church soteriologies most probably would have been much closer to emphases of the Eastern tradition.[5]

     My line of questioning in this essay, the purpose of which is to look for possible convergences between the Eastern doctrine of deification and Western soteriologies, also relates to another orientation in the East, namely the pneumatological concept of grace.  In other words, we will also ask how do these two dialogue partners draw in their doctrine of salvation from the well of the Spirit.  This is relevant since the Eastern idea of deification, as will become evident in the course of the discussion, is a thoroughly pneumatological approach.

    A casual look at Western soteriologies leaves one with the impression that pneumatology has not played any crucial role. It looks like traditional Reformation theology, especially in its Lutheran[6] form, is built on Christological concepts rather than on pneumatological. Even with regard to a much younger Free Church partner, the Pentecostal tradition, although a novice might easily take for granted that Pentecostals have a developed pneumatological theology, it appears that pneumatological orientations do not play any important role.

     So, one might remark that the choosing of Western theologies, especially in the Lutheran form, for a dialogue partner with the Eastern view might be very problematic. Indeed, if this article had been written a couple of decades ago, not much convergence could have been found. In our present days, there are a number of positive ecumenical changes on the horizon, and happily so. Recent Lutheran ecumenical theology has discovered an unexpected motif of deification and a pneumatological concept of grace within Luther?s own writings. The so-called Mannermaa school at the University of Helsinki has provided a most promising and also to some extent a controversial claim about theosis being one of the images Luther used to describe salvation. Rapidly these findings have been introduced into ecumenical conversations, first between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Finnish Lutheran Church, and then into the international Orthodox-Lutheran dialogues.  

     I will proceed in the following way. After briefly tracing the biblical and patristic roots of the doctrine of theosis, as they are understood in the Eastern tradition, I will discuss first Lutheran and then Free Church views of deification and underlying pneumatological ramifications. In conclusion, I will offer some ecumenical suggestions and topics for further study and dialogue.

     I start with a short exposition of Eastern views, not to teach my Eastern specialists about their own distinctive doctrine, but rather to make sure that I have correctly understood the main points. True ecumenical theology finds its point of departure in a faithful presentation of the views represented by other dialogue members. Such an exposition also makes one prone for correction and further learning about each other.

Main features of the Eastern doctrine of deification

     The Bible offers a sufficient amount of passages about the idea of human participation in God for it to be taken as an important image of salvation. But perhaps, it does not speak about it so much than Eastern Orthodox theologians and some others, too,[7] sometimes let us understand. The two cardinal texts are 2 Pet 1:4 and Ps 82:6 (cited in John 10:34-35). 

     Orthodox theologians claim that the doctrine has a solid biblical basis that goes beyond the two explicit texts mentioned above.[8]  They refer to other biblical passages, such as Ex. 34:30 where Mose's face shone, or Ex. 7:1 which reveals that Moses became a god to Pharaoh. The transfiguration of Peter on Mt. Tabor (Matt. 17:4) is also considered another classic text. Orthodox fathers often cite 2 Cor 8:9, Heb 4:15, and a host of texts from Johannine corpus.[9]

     The two most often referred to patristic[10]  texts are from Irenaeus and Athanasius.  Irenaeus says: "The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ who because of his limitless love became what we are in order to make us what even he himself is."[11]  Athanasius is  more succinct: "Christ became human that humans might become divine."[12] 

     Many more patristic texts could be added for example from  Symeon the New Theologian, whose view is always towards a pneumatological orientation, to Maximos the Confessor, the Cappadocian Fathers, etc.  Basil attributes the experience of theosis to the Holy Spirit who, "being God by nature deifies by grace those who still belong to a nature subject to change."[13]  St. Macarios likewise accentuates the role of the Spirit in theosis when he says that persons to be deified, though they retain their own identity (i.e., do not overstep the distinction between God and human), "are all filled with the Holy Spirit."[14]

     Even though Orthodox Vladimir Lossky's comment that theosis is "echoed by the fathers and the theologians of every age"[15] might intentionally be an overstatement, it does however reflect the general mindset among patristic fathers.

     The patristic doctrine of theosis can be briefly formulated as follows:

Divine life has manifested itself in Christ.  In the church as the body of Christ, man has a share in this life.  Man partakes thereby of the "divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).  This "nature," or divine life, permeates the being of man like a leaven in order to restore it to its original condition as imago Dei.[16]

     The distinction between God and human person is not made void. God still remains God and human remains human though participating in the divine.  Orthodox theology, as is well known, has tried to solve this problem by making a distinction between divine essence and divine energies. According to Eastern understanding, deification means participating in divine energies not divine essence as such.  The classical formulation is that of Gregory Palamas.[17]

     Following this short tracing of biblical and patristic roots, it is time to look at later developments in Eastern soteriology and its pneumatological ramifications to orient the future discussion. As is well known, there is a pronounced difference in orientation in Christology and soteriology between the East and West.  According to Eastern theology, Latin traditions have been dominated by legal, juridical, and forensic categories.  Eastern theology, on the contrary, understands the need of salvation in terms of deliverance from mortality and corruption for life everlasting.  Union with God is the goal of Christian life, even becoming ?in-godded?.  The underlying anthropology[18] is not necessarily more positive but, instead of operating mainly in guilt-concepts, it looks upward, so to speak, to the image of God to be fulfilled in mortal human beings.[19]  The idea of divine-human co-operation in salvation is not only accepted but is enthusiastically championed, although it is not understood as nullifying the role of grace.

     According to the Eastern view, the descent (katábasis) of the divine person of Christ makes human persons capable of an ascent (anábasis) in the Holy Spirit.  It was necessary that the voluntary humiliation, the redemptive kénosis, of the Son of God should take place, so that fallen men and women might accomplish their vocation of theosis, the deification of created beings by uncreated grace.[20]

     Eastern theologians do not speak of deification only as a metaphor; they also stress the reality of the union with God, promised to the faithful.[21]  They do of course struggle with the compatibility of the two seemingly opposite ideas: the absolute incommunicability of the divine being and a real partaking of humanity in God.  Whatever one may think of traditional Eastern solutions (e.g., essence-energy -distinction), there is no denying their passion to affirm the idea of the divine-human union.

     The deification of the creature will be, of course, realized in its fullness only in the age to come. This deifying union has nevertheless to be fulfilled ever more and more even in this present life.  Consequently, Eastern theologians do not shy away from speaking of divine-human synergy,[22] co-operation of man/woman with God.  Men and women are to be saved by grace, but not without one's total devotion and willingness to be transformed. 

     Prayer, asceticism, meditation, humble service, and similar exercises are recommended for the attainment of this noble goal.  The notion of merit, though, is foreign to the Eastern tradition.  In general, their attitude towards grace and free will is less reserved than their Western partners.  In the East, the question of free will has never had the urgency which it assumed in the West from the time of St. Augustine onwards.  The Eastern tradition never separates grace and human freedom. Therefore, the charge of Pelagianism (i.e., that grace is a reward for the merit of the human will) is not fair.  It is not a question of merit(s), but of co-operation, of a synergy of the two wills, divine and human.  Grace is a presence of God within us which demands constant effort on our part.[23]  In the nineteenth century, Bishop Theophanes, a great Russian ascetic writer, asserted that "the Holy Ghost, acting within us, accomplishes with us our salvation" and that "being assisted by grace,  man accomplished the work of his salvation."[24]

    The role of the Holy Spirit in Eastern soteriology is highlighted by the ultimate goal of salvation.  Redemption has our salvation from sin as an immediate aim, but salvation will have its ultimate realization in the age to come in our union with God, the deification of the created beings whom Christ ransomed.  But this final realization involves the dispensation of the Holy Spirit.  The work of the Spirit is, of course, inseparable from that of the Son.  In the words of St. Athanasius, "God bearing flesh," and Christians, "bearing the Spirit."[25] 

     Interestingly enough, Eastern Fathers attribute to the Spirit all the multiplicity of names which can be attributed to grace,[26] as is evident for example in St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil.  They freely speak about the Holy Spirit as effecting deification, perfection, adoption, and sanctification.[27]  Eastern Christians sing: "The Holy Spirit giveth life to souls; he exalteth them in purity; He causeth the sole nature of the Trinity to shine in them mysteriously."[28] The Eastern Church teaches that that which is common to the Father and the Son is the divinity which the Holy Spirit communicates (cf. perichoresis) to humans within the Church, in making them partakers of the divine nature.[29]  According to Gregory Nazianzen, deification is the highest gift and blessing of the Holy Spirit.[30]  In this sense, as St. Seraphim of Sarov said, "The true aim of the Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God."[31]

     In fact, the idea of deification cannot be expressed on a Christological basis alone, but demands a Pneumatological development as well.  For the mystical tradition of Eastern Christendom, Pentecost, which confers the presence of the Holy Spirit and the first-fruits of sanctification, signifies both the end and final goal of the spiritual life.  It is important to note that in the Eastern rite confirmation[32] -"anointing" with the Spirit - follows immediately upon baptism.  The Holy Spirit is operative in both sacraments.  The Spirit recreates human nature by purifying it and uniting it to the body of Christ.  The Spirit also bestows deity upon human persons.[33]  Eastern theology even speaks about Christians as "christs," anointed ones: The Spirit who rests like a royal unction upon the humanity of the Son, communicates Himself to each member of Christ's body.[34]

     The mystical theology of the Eastern wing of the Church is often more experience-based and concrete than Latin theology.  "As he who grasps one end of a chain pulls along with it the other end to himself, so he who draws the Spirit draws both the Son and the Father along with it," Basil writes.[35]  The role of the Spirit in this understanding - although the language is of course not to be taken at face value - is to make the "first contact," to be followed by the revelation of the Son and, through Him,  the Father.[36]  There is a genuine Trinitarian outlook in the Eastern view: "The Father does all things by the Word in the Holy Spirit."[37] 

In ipsa fide Christus adest: Theosis in Luther's Theology

Lutheran-Orthodox Conversations on Deification

       Two developments in recent years have opened new horizons for a more positive appraisal of the Eastern doctrine of deification by Lutherans: ecumenical conversations between Lutherans and Orthodox, and a "new quest for Luther's theology' initiated by  the Mannermaa school at the University of Helsinki.

     Already in the 1970s, the Finnish Lutheran Church, in its conversations with the Russian Orthodox Church, adopted a number of soteriological statements which compare the Lutheran doctrine of justification with the Orthodox view of deification/theosis.[38]  After the publication of the Finnish-Russian dialogue results in English,[39] other regional conversations have made use of them.[40]

      The Finnish-Lutheran dialogue produced a highly influential soteriological document in Kiev 1977 titled "Salvation as Justification and Deification."  The preamble to the theses claims that

Until recently, there has been a predominant opinion that the Lutheran and Orthodox doctrines of salvation greatly differ from each other.  In the conversations, however, it has become evident that both these important aspects of salvation discussed in the conversations have a strong New Testament basis and there is great unanimity with regard to them both.[41]

     It was found that the doctrine of deification covers the idea of a Christian's life as righteous and sinful at the same time, as the Lutheran theology has always emphasized.  The idea of deification makes more explicit what is sometimes in danger of being under-emphasized in Lutheranism, namely the sanative role of grace: "When the Christian has been justified, he takes a new road leading to deification."[42]

    Perhaps the greatest obstacle to Lutherans in how they perceive Eastern soteriology is the question of the freedom of human will.  Orthodox speak freely of the freedom of human person in a strongly ontological sense whereas for Lutherans there is not much left to human initiative.[43]

Deification in Recent Luther Research

     The theological grounding of the suggested convergence between Orthodox and Lutheran soteriologies - which has since its publication created debate - was done by Prof. Tuomo Mannermaa and his students at Helsinki.  For Mannermaa, the contact point is Luther's idea of 'Christ present in faith" (in ipsa fide Christus adest).[44]  According to Mannermaa, the idea of Christ's presence is "real-ontic"[45] for Luther, not just a subjective experience (Erlebnis) or God's effect on the believer (Wirkung) as the neo-Protestant school has exclusively held.[46]

     The core of the doctrine of deification from this viewpoint is the idea of real participation in the divine life in Christ. We receive the salvatory gifts through participation in Christ.[47]  The Lutheran tradition holds to the idea of God living in the believer (inhabitatio Dei).  This for Mannermaa is analogous with the doctrine of theosis.  According to Luther, Christ and thus his person and work is present in the faith itself.[48]  For him, Christ present in faith is the forma fidei, i.e., the realization or concrete manifestation of faith.  Whereas Catholic theology considers love as a forma, Luther regards Christ himself as the link between faith and good works.[49]      

    Mannermaa's student Simo Peura has written a full scale monograph on the idea of deification in Luther.[50]  Peura shows that even though Luther does not often use term deification itself,[51] the idea of deification is an integral motif of his theology.  The most explicit passage comes from Luther's Sermon on the day of St. Peter and St. Paul (1519): 

For it is true that a man helped by grace is more than a man; indeed, the grace of God gives him the form of God and deifies him, so that even the Scriptures call him "God" and "God's son."[52]

     To cite but another obvious example from Luther's Christmas sermon of 1514: "Just as the word of God became flesh, so its is certainly also necessary that the flesh become word.  For the word becomes flesh precisely so that the flesh may become word.  In other words: God becomes man so that man may becomes God.  Thus power becomes powerless so that weakness may become powerful. The logos puts on our form and manner."[53]  It is easy to see that Luther presents here the idea of deification with the help of the formulation from Athanasius and Irenaeus, as a union of logos and flesh, or word and man.  Although God does not stop being God and man does not stop being man, the unio is real, it is "a community of being of God and man."[54]

    Although the term deification is not frequent in Luther, the core idea is integral to him; he usually prefers terms like presence of Christ in faith, the participation in God, union with God, perichoresis, the famous Eastern term, and others.

     As already noted,  Christ's real presence in believer is the leading motif in Luther's soteriology. A classic formulation can be found for example in his Lectures on Galatians (1535).  Speaking about "true faith," Luther says: "It takes hold of Christ in such a way that Christ is the object of faith, or rather not the object, but so to speak, the One who is present in the faith itself. Therefore faith justifies because it takes hold of and possesses this treasure, the present Christ."[55]

     The idea of participation in God is related to this.  Luther does not hesitate to say that "we are born again into eternal life by faith, that we may live in God and with God and be one with him, as Christ says (John 17:21)."[56]  Participation in Christ, following Paul (Phil. 3 et al.), is also participation in his cross.  For Luther, the idea of deification is closely linked with his theology of the cross.[57]  This is a helpful reminder not to get too easily carried away by the idea of divinization which borders on the theologia gloriae, the arch-enemy of Luther's thinking.

     Pneumatological implications of this new approach of Luther scholarship are obvious.  The leading idea, Christ present through faith, can also be expressed pneumatically: it is through the Spirit of Christ - it has to be remembered that Luther always thinks Christologically - that mediation of salvatory gifts is accomplished.  Participation in God is possible only through the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of adoption.[58]

     In fact, several major research projects at the University of Helsinki are currently underway focusing on pneumatological orientations in Luther.[59]   The title of Prof. Miikka Ruokanen's preliminary study clearly expresses its purpose: Spiritus vel gratia est ipsa fide (Spirit or grace is the faith itself), with the subtitle, A Pneumatological Concept of Grace in Luther's De servo arbitrio.[60] Opposite to what is usually thought of Luther's major work De servo arbitrio (in which he attacks Erasmus vehemently), Ruokanen argues that the theology of grace and justification is conceived very much in terms of pneumatology.[61] Ruokanen shows that Augustine's concept of pneumatological gratia increata (i.e., the personal presence of the Triune God in man through the Holy Spirit) might be an indispensable theological background for Luther's emerging pneumatology of grace.[62] [63]

Christ's Real Presence In Faith Through the Spirit in Charismatic Lutheran Theology

     A highly interesting study for the purposes of the present essay is the inquiry into the pneumatological implications of the doctrine of salvation in Charismatic Lutheran Theology.  Dr. Markku Antola has recently published his dissertation entitled, The Experience of Christ?s Real Presence in Faith.[64]

     The Charismatic theology of Lutheranism describes charismatic experience[65] as the presence of the Triune God through his Spirit.[66]  The actual purpose of the Holy Spirit?s work is to create faith in Christ and lead the believer into a "living union" with Christ.  "But the Holy Spirit alone creates true faith, whereby one is actually united with the living Christ as the present and redeeming Lord."[67]  It is noteworthy that Christ's presence is often expressed by the union with Christ-concept:

"If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation." (2. Cor. 5:17).  The newness is not simply the fact that human nature has been forgiven and cleansed. The newness goes deeper: a person now lives in union with the risen Christ.  That which has been created, the "new creation," is precisely this reality of the indwelling Spirit establishing and maintaining the risen Christ and the believer in a living union.[68]

     Explicitly using Luther's language, the Charismatic theology maintains that "in the faith itself Christ is present."[69]  And: "Faith describes the whole action by which the Holy Spirit brings the living, redeeming presence of Christ into a living union with a human being.  The initiative and the power to accomplish this lies with the Spirit."[70]

Also, in line with Luther's own theology - but not necessarily of subsequent Lutheranism - Charismatic theologians teach that the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ's work to the believer (favor Dei) is to be followed by unio with Christ, where Christ comes to live inside the believer as God's gift (donum).  In other words, justification does not only include God's favor but also Christ as the gift living inside the Christians.[71]  The Charismatic Lutheran theology is also helpful in maintaining that - in line with Luther himself, but against his later interpreters - justification and sanctification, rather than being two distinct matters, occur inside each other and happen simultaneously.[72]

     An important bridge to both Eastern and some Free Church (e.g., Pentecostal-Holiness) traditions is the accent on experience:

No one can correctly understand God or his Word unless he has received such understanding immediately from the Holy Spirit.  But no one can receive it from the Holy Spirit without experiencing, proving, and feeling it.[73]

Deification, Grace, and Spirit in Free Church traditions

Anabaptist and Mennonite traditions

     Not only by Reformers but also by their counterparts, Radical Reformers, the Reformation's "left wing," was the idea of deification embraced.  This is the conclusion of Thomas Finger, a Mennonite theologian, who has compared Eastern Orthodox theology with Anabaptism. Finger maintains that Anabaptism can be seen as a sixteenth-century expression of an ascetic impulse originating in Eastern cenobitic monasticism.[74] He shows evidence that for these persecuted people, the doctrine of theosis brought hope and encouragement.[75]  Finger lists a host of Mennonite leaders, such as Hans Denck, Melchior Hofmann, Menno Simons, and others who have championed the idea of divinization.[76]

     According to the classic study of E. Troeltsch, Anabaptists and Spiritualists (the latter group of which has contemporary "relatives" in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements) translated the radical implications of sola fide into a practical life-style and everyday religion without cultus.[77]  Anabaptists, as well as their successors, focused on sanctification much more than Reformers, even to the point of being accused by Reformers for "salvation by works".[78]  Modern Pentecostals and Charismatics inherited from Anabaptists and Spritualists an intensive eschatological awareness coupled with the emphasis on the Holy Spirit's transforming power.[79]

     In line with Eastern Christians, but in difference from Reformers, Anabaptists understood grace as a transforming divine energy.[80] According to the groundbreaking research of Alvin J. Beach, grace brings about "a reversal of the incarnation in which the eternal Word becomes man in order that man may become God".[81]  The Swiss Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier often characterized redemption as rebirth through the Spirit.[82]  Similarly, among South German-Austrian Anabaptists, clear references to divinization abound; the same can be said of the Hutterites of the same area, as well as of the Dutch Anabaptists.[83]

    It is amazing how Eastern sounds the text from Dirk Phillips, a colleague of Menno Simons:

All believers are participants of the divine nature, yes, and are called gods and children of the Most High; they yet do not become identical in nature and person itself to what God and Christ are.  Oh, no!  The creature will never become the Creator and the fleshly will never become the eternal Spirit itself which God is. But the believers become gods and children of the most high through the new birth, participation, and fellowship of the divine nature.[84]

     J. A. Osterhuus makes a highly interesting ecumenical claim that whereas Catholicism considered grace an accident of the human soul, bestowed in somewhat mechanical fashion, and the Reformers considered it a divine activity, yet one making little direct contact with the human, for the Dutch Anabaptists, grace played a far more comprehensive role: it was the divine energy underlying creation, incarnation, and sanctification.[85]  Even if this caricature might not do full justice to either Catholic or Reformed soteriology, the convergence of the Anabaptist view of grace with the Eastern soteriology is startling.

     Nothwithstanding some methodological questions (e.g., the linkage, if any, between the sixteenth century Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy[86]), enough evidence is available to show clear convergences between these early Free Church theologies and the Eastern view of salvation.  How much of this is convergence due to the similarity of language only, cannot be determined in the confines of this research, anymore than for example the question whether the terms, such as "divinization," have the same meaning or not.  These kinds of questions have to be left for further scrutiny.

Wesley and Holiness Traditions

      Ecumenically, it is significant that Wesleyan and Holiness  traditions, the most influential Free Church movements antecedent to the Twentieth Century Free Church developments in general and Pentecostal-Charismatic Movements in particular,[87] carry along the similar kind of Eastern influences and pneumatological emphases which were found in Anabaptist and related movements of the sixteenth century.

     In fact,  Jürgen Moltmann has shown in his Spirit of Life that John Wesley, the theological architect of the Holiness traditions,  was himself open to the idea of deification and to a pneumatological understanding of the concept of grace.  Wesley was able to discern five stages in the sanctification of life from an awakening of the conscience by a preliminary divine grace to a gradual sanctification of life to the final stage: "Believers are wholly interpenetrated by the Holy Spirit and arrive at the state of Christian perfection, the theosis."[88]  Moltmann correctly notes that for Wesley, sin is a sickness that requires healing rather than a breach of law requiring atonement.  Therefore, Wesley was less interested than Reformation theology in the permanent justification of the sinner, and more interested in the process of a moral renewal.[89] This kind of orientation does, of course, bear the marks of Eastern Orthodox spirituality.

     David Bundy, in a research conference at Prague, Fall 1997, where there was a fruitful encounter between theologians from Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal-Holiness traditions, read a paper titled, "Vision of Sanctification: Themes of Orthodoxy in the Methodist, Holiness and Pentecostal Traditions."[90]  In his paper, Bundy attempted to detect some common theological roots in Pentecostal-Holiness and Eastern traditions.  He referred to several Methodist researchers who have found evidence of Orthodox themes pervading Wesleyan theology.  Albert Outler years ago made the claim that Wesley's reading of Orthodox theologians had a definite influence on Methodist theology.[91]

     Bundy summarizes his well documented piece of research on the formative Eastern Orthodox influences through Holiness Movements to Pentecostalism:

One particular strand of Eastern Christianity can be traced from Clement of Alexandria to Origen to Pseudo-Macarius to Wesley to Madame Guyon and from both of them to the Holiness theologian Thomas Cogswell Upham, Phoebe Palmer, and from them to formative theologians of Pentecostalism including William Seymour. Minnie Abraham and Thomas Ball Barrett.[92]

     Wesley's sermons can suggest that the goal of the Christian life is "Christian perfection," a movement toward the goal of unity with God.  Like Eastern spiritual guides, there is emphasis on prayer as a tool for achieving contemplation of God and ascetic life in which every activity and passion of life is part of that struggle for victory over the ungodly influences in life.[93]  This was undoubtedly the mentality of (early) Pentecostal meetings where power from on high was expected to finish what was lacking in sanctification and empowerment for service.

     Terminologically, there is one identification in Bundy's text which raises question marks (and is often evident in ecumenical conversations between Lutherans and Orthodox).  It seems as if he wants to make "theosis" a synonym with "sanctification".[94] This is, of course, not so much wrong as it is one-sided.  Sanctification is but part of what Eastern theologians call deification, it is the goal.  Even the whole process of salvation could be called deification, not just its "end station". 

Pentecostal Traditions

    Ed Rybarczyk, in his recent doctoral dissertation entitled, "Beyond Salvation: An Analysis of the Doctrine of Christian Transformation Comparing Eastern Orthodoxy with Classical Pentecostalism,"[95] argues that the common denominator between Eastern spirituality and Pentecostalism is mystical nature of both movements, although Pentecostal theology and spirituality is "only occassionally mystical".[96]

     In line with Bundy, Rybarczyk claims that John Wesley was the main theological bridge (although no clear historical connection can be established) between Pentecostalism and Orthodoxy. Wesley's lasting effects on Pentecostalism lie in anthropology and soteriology.  The Christian life, for him, was not primarily a matter of judicial pardon, but rather restoring the image of God in humanity, to help humans participate in the divinity of God.  Like the Orthodox, Wesley and Pentecostals are deeply concerned with what happens in the Christians and not just what happens for the Christian. [97]

     It is highly interesting that Bundy sees clear convergence between the spirituality of William J. Seymour, the Black pioneer at Azusa Street, and the Alexandrian Christian tradition of Origen (praktike, theorike, gnosis) and others in the matters of justification, sanctification, and baptism in the Holy Spirit.[98]  The same applies to two other pioneers Bundy discusses, namely Minnie Abrahams and Thomas Barrett.  In fact, Abrahams describes the goal of life as "union with God" which is not unlike both the Orthodox and Luther's traditions do. Furthermore, she understands the Christian life as spiritual warfare "which is best waged in prayer and ascetic lifestyle" where one is able to surrender one's self completely to the comformity of the will of God.  Only through the grace of God's Holy Spirit living through the individual can the individual be successful in this personal renewal.  Resembling patristic/Orthodox language, she says that the individual who experiences the infusion of the Holy Spirit can fall away through the lack of conformity to God's will. The journey to "union" is developmental from stage to stage.  Significantly enough, echoing Luther's language of participation in Christ's cross, Abrahams speaks about being made perfect through conformity to Christ's death and resurrection. She also speaks about the "abiding presence of the fire of the Holy Ghost" in the hearts of those praying and fighting to be conformed to God?s image.[99]

     According to T. Barratt, the same principles of spiritual life are in operation in that through prayer and perfect submission to the will of God, grace is given by the Holy Spirit for victorious life.  The goals of this life are power for service and being "in Him, lost in Him and His love."[100]

     It has to be noted that Pentecostal theology and spirituality, contrary to what is often claimed by outsiders, is not pneumatocentric as such.  Pentecostal spirituality is shaped by Christ-centeredness.  Jesus Christ is depicted as the Justifier, Sanctifier, Healer of the Body, Baptizer with the Holy Spirit, and Soon Coming King.  The is the classical "five-fold" Gospel, or as it is sometimes known by the Pentecostals, the "Full Gospel".[101]  However, whereas Christ is the basis for the believer's justification and sanctification, the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who draws the believer to - and makes the believer becomes like - Christ in the process of progressive sanctification.  This is an important convergence in relation to Reformation theology, too.[102]

Faith as "Fullness of Life in the Spirit"

     The International Dialogue between the Roman Catholic-Church and Pentecostal Churches (1972-1989) produced a highly significant agreement of a pneumatological understanding of salvation.  Notwithstanding serious disagreements concerning soteriology (e.g. sacraments, personal response of faith), both Catholics and Pentecostals mutually agreed that the essence of faith is "fullness of life in the Spirit" or "indwelling of the Spirit in individuals".  The common statement uses "union" language in a pneumatological framework:

The Holy Spirit, being the agent of regeneration, is given in Christian initiation, not as a commodity but as he who unites us with Christ and the Father in a personal relationship.  Being a Christian includes the reception of grace through the Holy Spirit for one's own sanctification as well as gifts to be ministered to others.[103]

     It is the Spirit of Christ who unites the believer to Christ and to his people.  The grace to save us from the power of sin and death is given through the Holy Spirit.  Following Karl Rahner, it can be said that grace is first and foremost God's self-communication and presence through his Spirit to human existence.[104]

     Ecumenically, it is noteworthy that the giving of the Spirit to dwell in every Christian is cast in a Trinitarian context. The Holy Spirit is given in Christian initiation "as he who unites us with Christ and the Father."[105]

Concluding Reflections: Theses for Further Study and Reflection

     To facilitate continuing search for a more conciliar understanding of salvation through the lens of deification and pneumatology, let me suggest the following theses for further study and reflection:

1) Deification is an ecumenically fruitful and biblically-theologically  legitimate image of salvation. 

     For a long time, it was believed that Reformation and Orthodox soteriologies were diametrically opposed to each other.  A closer scrutiny showed that this is not necessarily the case.  A faithful reading of Luther's texts shows that the idea of deification is not just occasional but an integral part of the structure of Luther's view of salvation.  Even though the concept of deification is not extensively used by Luther, other corresponding concepts leave no doubt about the legitimacy of theosis as an image of salvation.

     Perhaps a  similar kind of finding could happen when Free Church texts are searched.  Bundy's reading of some selected texts is a promising step. (However, when one finds occasional terms like "union", one has to be careful not to read too much into them.)

     There is enough documented material already to show that Free Church theologies do not stand in contradistinction to the idea of deification - participation in God, union with God, etc.  The appearance of the idea from Anabaptist tradition  through Wesleyan to Pentecostal soteriologies witnesses to its importance to these younger Christian movements.

     But why, then, is there such a need to try to establish the legitimacy of the concept of deification?

     Deification is a suitable image of salvation since it is both faithful to the ancient church and viable for the need of contextualization in the modern world. The idea of deification, rather than being a novelty, is an ancient concept widely used during the first centuries by the Church catholic.  Furthermore, it is also highly relevant to the challenges of our days.  Living as we are during the time of transformation of religions and cultural patterns, the Church is challenged by all kinds of yearning for spirituality, from crystals to horoscopes to interest in angels.[106]  Without getting adjusted to the mindset of our days (cf. Rom. 12:2), we need to respond to challenges also from other religions, and speak about a legitimate kind of "divinization". What we are doing here is an exercise on contextualization of theology.

2) The idea of deification is a pneumatologically pregnant concept, thus helping both Lutheran and Free Church theologies to highlight the role of the Spirit in soteriology.

     Deification is a pneumatologically loaded image of salvation.  The pneumatological orientation was acknowledged even in the Lutheran-Orthodox conversations.  Defining the "the new road leading to deification" as a "process of growing in holiness", the joint document cites two important Pauline texts: "But we all, with open face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2. Cor. 3:18).  Deification takes place under the influence of the grace of the Holy Spirit by a deep and sincere faith, together with hope and permeated by love (1. Cor. 13:13).[107]

     Ecumenically in general and with regard to, e.g.,  Pentecostal-Lutheran relations in particular, it is extremely significant that it seems to be possible to express the classical Reformation doctrine of salvation and justification in pneumatological terms.  This is especially significant when we take into account the fact that traditionally Reformation theology, especially in its Lutheran form, has been so slow to adopt pneumatological orientation in its emphasis on forensic-juridical approaches both in Christology and soteriology.  Luther's original writings, however carry a clear pneumatological potential.

     Protestant soteriologies which are built on the one hand on Christological categories of Latin theology and, on the other hand, on forensic-juridical concepts of Reformation, are enriched in a genuine way by exposure to a pneumatological orientation.  

     Moltmann has a helpful section on soteriology in his Spirit of Life where he criticizes the traditional Reformation/Lutheran view for not paying due attention to the role of the Spirit in salvation.  Referring to passages like Titus 3:5-7, which speaks about the "washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly", Moltmann  emphasizes that "regeneration" as "renewal" comes about through the Holy Spirit" when the "Spirit is "poured out".[108]  By making further reference to John 4:14, the metaphor of the divine "wellspring of life" which begins to flow in a human being, he contends that "through this experience of the Spirit, who comes upon us from the Father through the Son, we become "justified through grace".[109] 

     Moltmann's theologizing helps Protestant traditions to re-orient their soteriologies in a helpful way,  in fact, in a way which does much better justice to their spirituality.  First, it focuses on the crucial role of the Spirit in justification and regeneration in accordance with many New Testament witnesses.  Second, it puts more stress on the process of sanctification than traditional Reformation doctrine has done.  Again, quoting Moltmann: "The operation of the Spirit as we experience it is therefore a double one: it is the justification of the godless out of grace, and their rebirth to a living hope through their installation in their right to inherit God's future.  The justification of the godless is the initial operation of the outpouring of the Spirit."[110]

3) Encounter with Eastern traditions helps Free Church theologies to clarify some basic issues which Reformation traditions have found problematic.

     Traditionally, Reformation theologians have accused Eastern Orthodoxy of two cardinal errors: free will and synergia.  Interestingly enough, same accusations are usually leveled against Free Church soteriologies. For example, Pentecostal sources freely speak about the role of human will.[111]  According to Rybarczyk, Pentecostal doctrine of sanctification "is clearly synergistic". But he adds that the synergistic pneumatological-anthropological position is based on the belief that "the Holy Spirit is sovereignly free to interact with the believer on an individual basis." [112] Orthodox theology regards freedom as belonging to the constitution of human beings.[113]

     The background to the alleged contradistinction may be found in the debates of (pre)Reformation concerning the relationship between nature and grace.  Catholic Lyle Dabney[114] has identified two different models of doing theology.  The oldest model  he calls the theology of "the first article".  It is the scholastic Thomastic model which finds its point of departure in the goodness - although not of course, in the sinlessness - of God's creation.  The basic axiom of this type of theology is that grace fulfills that which is in nature: "Grace does not destroy, but rather presupposes and perfects nature."[115]   Over and against this claim stands the theology of the sixteenth-century Reformation which is based on  the second article (Christology), and assumes discontinuity rather than continuity between nature and grace.  From Luther to Barth there are various nuances but the same kind of insistence on the incompatibility of human nature and God's grace.

     Now, Free Church soteriology has traditionally identified itself with the Reformation camp in its fear of Catholicism and their "work-based" view of salvation.  Orthodox tradition, as we saw above, does not easily fit either category, it does not operate at all along the lines of nature-grace opposition. Ironically, both Orthodox and Free Church views, though, seem to be on the same side, so to speak.  For neither traditions, there is no denying the relative freedom of will and human responsibility, although Free Churches often have not acknowledged the tension in relation to strict Lutheran view of human beings as almost as inactive as a "stone or log of wood".[116]

     As a way out of the old dichotomy, Dabney suggests a theology "of the third article", which finds its orientation in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  It represents "continuity through discontinuity which begins its witness to Christ with the Holy Spirit, is rooted in the Trinitarian event of the cross, and then defines the Christian community in those categories."[117]  A pneumatological concept of grace, anchored in the cross of Christ and a trinitarian vision, might help to reassess the traditional dilemma. 

     Eastern Orthodox tradition might be helpful here with its insistence on pneumatological orientations on the one hand, and on the need for divine human synergy, on the other.  This enterprise might, of course, border on Pelagian charges but  Orthodox theology, however does not regard itself as (semi)Pelagian[118] but insists on a different kind of anthropology and a legitimate divine-human synergy.  It seems to me that Free Churches have been so eager to identify themselves with the Reformation doctrine of justification[119] that they have not seen how much in variance their anthropology and view of human responsibility is indeed with the Reformation view.