Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Cambridge: James Clark and Co. 1957, reprint 2005). Paperback, 260 pages. ISBN: 0-227-67919-9.

Reviewed by: Edward Moore, St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology

Word count: 2060 words

This publication is a translation (by members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius) of Lossky’s original French text, Essai sur la Theologie Mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient (Paris 1944). Since appearing in English translation in 1957 as The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Lossky’s book has earned a well-deserved reputation as an indispensable text for the study of Eastern (Orthodox) Christian theology.

Lossky begins his essay with the following statement: "In a certain sense all theology is mystical, inasmuch as it shows forth the divine mystery: the data of revelation" (p. 7). Invoking Henri Bergson’s distinction between "static" and "dynamic" religion, Lossky explains how theology is often considered – particularly in the Protestant West – as a practice taking place within the dogmatic confines of the Church (the "static"), while mysticism is often seen as something reserved for the select few, capable of rising to spiritual heights unattainable by the more rigidly authoritarian and submissive ecclesiastical theologians (the "dynamic"). The Eastern Orthodox tradition, however, "has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology; between personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church. … Far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism support and complete each other" (p. 8). Since the goal of the Christian is, according to Orthodox tradition, the attainment of "union with God" (theôsis), mysticism and theology must not be separated; for the foundational dogma of the Orthodox Christian tradition – that God became man so that man might become divine – is essentially a mystery. This does not mean that God is totally beyond human experience; rather, it means that humanity must not confine itself to a single ‘method,’ if you will, for gaining some understanding of God’s plan for us. Lossky’s thesis is that experience and understanding – i.e., the mystical and dogmatic traditions, respectively – must become united through our reception of "the unceasing revelation of the Holy Spirit in the Church" (p. 236).

In this work, Lossky explores the roles of apophatic, or negative, theology, and kataphatic, or positive, theology in the Orthodox tradition, and the manner in which their union leads to "an ever-greater plenitude, in which knowledge is transformed into ignorance, the theology of concepts into contemplation, dogmas into experience of ineffable mysteries" (p. 238). This experience is theôsis, intimate proximity to the mind of God. Yet, as Lossky is careful to point out: "The personal character of a human being who has entered on the way to union is never impaired, even though he renounces his own will and his natural inclinations. It is just by this free renunciation of all by which nature belongs to it that the human personality comes to its full realization in grace. What is not free and definitely conscious has no personal value" (p. 217). The ecstasy (ekstasis) experienced by the mystic is not an end in itself, but rather a stepping stone to a constant participation in divine life. In order for God’s grace to abound, the will of the human being must co-operate with the will of God; but this must be done freely and with a complete consciousness, on the part of the human person, of his continual experience of and proximity to the divine life. Lossky offers a brief but powerful quote from St. Macarius of Egypt, which sums up this notion quite nicely: "The will of man is an essential condition, for without it God does nothing" (p. 199).

The main thesis of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, briefly outlined above, is supported throughout the bulk of the text by in-depth discussions of several difficult aspects of Orthodox Christian theology. After a more or less coherent introduction, in which Lossky lays out his intentions for his essay, we enter into a discussion of apophatic theology, in Chapter 2, entitled "The Divine Darkness." Pseudo-Dionysius figures heavily in this chapter, along with the Cappadocians and other Fathers usually considered ‘mystical’. Lossky offers a very helpful definition of apophaticism; however, this chapter is marred by several sweeping generalizations regarding Hellenic philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism.

Emphasizing the ‘existential’ character of mystical experience, Lossky offers the following: "Apophaticism is not necessarily a theology of ecstasy. It is, above all, an attitude of mind which refuses to form concepts about God. Such an attitude utterly excludes all abstract and purely intellectual theology which would adapt the mysteries of the wisdom of God to human ways of thoughts. It is an existential attitude which involves the whole man: there is no theology apart from experience; it is necessary to change, to become a new man. To know God one must draw near to Him. No one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian. The way of the knowledge of God is necessarily the way of deification. … Apophaticism is, therefore, a criterion: the sure sign of an attitude of mind conformed to truth. In this sense all true theology is fundamentally apophatic" (p. 39). This relatively concise definition (considering the complexity of the subject) of apophaticism and its centrality in Orthodox Christian theology is accurate and helpful, emphasizing, as it does, the transformative power of man’s contemplation of God.

While "The Divine Darkness" serves as a fine launching-point into the central chapters of the book, which culminate in the penultimate and complementary Chapter 11, "The Divine Light" (on kataphatic theology), this reviewer was rather distracted by certain sweeping generalizations regarding pagan Neoplatonism. When Lossky refers to "the neo-platonists" it is clear that he is considering only Plotinus. This narrow focus causes Lossky to overlook the various developments in Neoplatonic philosophy (both pagan and Christian) from the time of Origen and Plotinus, to the time of Proclus and Pseudo-Dionysius. Whether or not Lossky was aware of these developments, his following, rather dismissive statement, remains inexcusable: "All that can be said in regard to the platonism of the Fathers, and especially in regard to the dependence of the author of the Areopagitica on the neo-platonist philosophers, is limited to outward resemblances which do not go to the root of their teaching, and relate only to a vocabulary which was common to the age" (p. 32).

One need only look, for example, at St. Gregory Nazianzen’s attempt to utilize Porphyry’s triadic emanation schema^[1] for the purpose of articulating a philosophically sound exposition of Christian trinitarian doctrine to see that the Platonism of the Fathers was more complex and deeply rooted than Lossky suggests. Further, in the case of Pseudo-Dionysius, the influence of Proclus is well-attested. Lossky’s blanket statement that, for the Platonic philosopher, the One is considered an object, and "ecstatic union" merely "a reduction to simplicity rather than a going forth from the realm of created beings" (p. 32) ignores vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. The theurgical doctrines of Iamblichus and Proclus demonstrate a keen understanding of the human soul’s importance for the maintenance of cosmic order. The human soul, once it attains the heights of divine contemplation through theurgical rites, will, according to these philosophers, achieve a state of being in which they participate in the eternal ordering of the cosmos, in unity with the divine mind. The highest principle, the One, is no mere "object" for these thinkers, but is rather the source of an experience that places the soul in intimate contact with divine realities.^[2]

In Chapter 3, "God in Trinity," Lossky launches into a careful exposition of the Orthodox dogma of the Holy Trinity. The value of this chapter resides in the fact that Lossky does not confine himself to a merely technical account of the meanings of various theological terms like prosôpon, hupostasis, monarkhia, etc. Rather, he goes further and demonstrates the importance of Trinitarian doctrine for the completion of the ‘project’ of human existence – the attainment of theôsis: "a participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity; the deified state of the co-heirs of the divine nature" in which human beings attain their proper state as "gods created after the uncreated God, possessing by grace all that the Holy Trinity possesses by nature" (p. 65). While Lossky’s account of the Orthodox Christian dogma of the Trinity is not as intellectually sophisticated as that of more recent theologians such as John D. Zizioulas, for example,^[3] it does serve as a helpful and well-cited introduction to that most difficult aspect of the Christian faith. As Lossky puts it bluntly: "The dogma of the Trinity is a cross for human ways of thought" (p. 66). The value of Lossky’s exposition is his willingness to accept this, and to find in the difficulty a pathway to mystical ascent to the divine.

Chapter 4, on the "Uncreated Energies," is arguably the most difficult chapter in the book. The Orthodox Christian concept of divine energies (energeiai) proceeding from the Godhead is crucial for a proper understanding of the relationship between God and His creation. By contemplating the function and purpose of the energies in bestowing grace upon humanity, and in revealing something of the essence of God in and through His created order, we gain a glimpse of our future deified state, i.e., when we become "partakers of the divine nature." However, it is important to note, as Lossky carefully does, that our participation in the divine nature is mediated through and by God’s energies. Only the three Persons of the Trinity share a single divine essence; humanity will come to share in the divine nature, to be sure, but not in the same manner as the Trinity. "Even though we share the same human nature as Christ and receive in Him the name of sons of God, we do not ourselves become the divine hypostasis of the Son by the fact of the Incarnation. We are unable, therefore, to participate in either the essence or the hypostases of the Holy Trinity" (p. 70). This is because we are creatures of God, created by Him for the sole purpose of participating in His nature, while remaining free beings, possessing our own unique nature. "It is in creation alone that God acts as cause, in producing a new subject called to participate in the divine fullness; preserving it, saving it, granting grace to it, and guiding it towards its final goal (pp. 88-89).

In the remaining chapters, Lossky offers enlightening discussions of various aspects of Orthodox Christian theology, always maintaining a focus on his central theme: that mysticism and theology are inextricably bound together, to the extent that the "dynamic" mystic and the "static" dogmatic theologian are both engaged in the same pusuit – the attainment of deification (theôsis). Lossky concludes his essay by reminding his reader of the transformative power of contemplation of the Holy Trinity: "The perfecting of gnosis is the contemplation of the divine light of the Holy Trinity; that full consciousness which is the parousia, the judgement, and the entering into eternal life, being fulfilled here and now … before death and the resurrection, in the saints who live in uninterrupted communion with God" (p. 247).

The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church is a comprehensive account, by a truly gifted and learned theologian, of the intricacies of Orthodox Christian theology. Updated footnotes, a bibliography, and perhaps an introduction by a contemporary Lossky scholar would have enhanced the value of the publication. That minor quibble aside, Lossky’s work is, and will surely remain, a classic and indispensable source for the study of the Eastern Christian tradition.

Notes:

[1] Gregory Nazianzen, De filio (Oration 29) 2.6-13, and Porphyry, Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes 30.1-7. Also, E. Moore, Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: An Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines (Boca Ration: Universal Publishers 2005), pp. 74-85.

[2] See G. Shaw, Neoplatonic Theurgy and Dionysius the Areopagite," in Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 1999), and the same author’s book, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press 1995), Chapter 4, "Theurgy as Demiurgy." On Proclus, see L. Siorvanes, Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science (New Haven: Yale University Press 1996), esp. the section "Desire, poetry and theurgy."

[3] See Zizioulas’ magisterial study, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1985). In this work, Zizioulas engages constructively with modern philosophy, particularly existentialism and phenomenology, for the purpose of expressing the deeply ethical foundation of Trinitarian doctrine.