From a more comprehensive theological point of view, the works of Vladimir Lossky and his influence on the re-vitalization of deification discourse in modern Orthodox thought are well known and, for the purpose of our bibliographical survey, do not require an introduction. The works of Romanian theologian Dumitru Staniloae, that are only now becoming more readily available in English, also extensively address the teaching of the Orthodox Church on deification. In this regard, I would like especially to refer to the second volume of his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The World: Creation and Deification (2005) and to his Orthodox Spirituality (2003). Predominantly the Neopalamite approach to deification that was inaugurated in the works of Florovsky and Lossky that substantially inspired above mentioned books by Coniaris, Stavropoulos, and Staniloae, was to some degree consolidated by Georgios Mantzaridis in his The Deification of Man: St Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition (1984).
Panayiotis Nellas’s book, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspective on the Nature of the Human Person (1987) contributes significantly to the development of a christocentric anthropological approach to theosis, which often the author terms “christification.” In the comprehensive and constructive assessment of a long list of patristic authorities on the subject, he gives particular preference to the late Byzantine theologian Nicolas Kabasilas. This book presents a theologically anthropological outlook on deification that is not only informative in an historical perspective on the deification theme, but also provides an interesting and insightful theological appropriation of theosis, that places its author, Panayiotis Nellas, among leading modern and original Eastern Orthodox theologians in the twentieth century.
More recently, another attempt to express the predominantly Palamite view of deification as the “classical” or standard understanding of theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy was offered by Stephen Thomas in Deification in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: A Biblical Perspective (2007). The main objective Thomas attempts to accomplish in his book is to show the importance and vitality of the biblical foundation for the Greek Fathers and Orthodox tradition on theosis. He hopes to spark a biblical revival for Orthodox Christians living in the West. Thus, the book is purposefully not designed for academicians and does not pretend to be original. Nevertheless, in his not always “classically” Neopalamite discourse, Thomas presents a rather intriguing and engaging synthesis of specifically Western biblical scholarship, adopted and complemented with distinctive theological characteristics of Eastern Orthodox theology and spirituality. The book seems to accomplish its intention and can be read not only as an overview of the Orthodox understanding of deification, but as an introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy aimed for biblically-minded, evangelical, Western readership. It is an interesting attempt to combine modern biblical scholarship with Orthodox spirituality.
In the context of such seemingly abundant literature on deification in the Orthodox tradition, we especially welcome the recent book by Norman Russell, Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (2009). Russell is mostly known as the prominent translator of theological and patristic works from modern and ancient Greek into English, and for his significant contribution to the field of patristic studies, especially to the discourse on theosis. His The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek patristic Tradition (2004) is a most comprehensive survey on deification in the Greek Fathers, expanding broad groundwork started by Roman Catholic theologian Jules Gross,4 and further explored by Andreas Theodorou.5
Russell’s Fellow Workers with God begins with the survey of the revival of the interest in theosis in twentieth-century Orthodox theology, that was due to several factors: the rediscovery of Gregory Palamas, the impact of Russian religious philosophy, recovery of the Philokalia, and renewal of interest in the Greek Fathers. As was the case in the patristic period, in modern Orthodox thought there are a variety of emphases when it comes to theosis. However, this apparent diversity, according to Russell, is “fundamentally convergent.”6 The importance of deification comes in the context of the divine economy of salvation, with culmination in the incarnation of Christ, “To see Christ is to know what it means to be God.”7 It is not simply a reflection on the historical role of Christ in the salvation of humankind, as Christ’s soteriological presence in the process of the divine economy that impacts everyday human life. The process of the reconciliation and glorification that was accomplished by Christ requires active human participation. It is a transformative experience that enables human beings to “become not ‘who’ Christ is but ‘what’ he is.”8 Thus, theosis is not merely another term for salvation and sanctification.
Already in the patristic period, Russell observes two patterns that define the role of theosis within divine economy. One, predominantly expressed by Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, is more biblically oriented, with emphasis on justification, sanctification, divine filiation, and participation in the divine nature. Another, represented by Maximus the Confessor and the later Fathers, is more speculative and philosophical, with more explicitly stated eschatological cosmic fulfillment. A similar tendency, according to Russell, continues among modern Eastern Orthodox theologians, the majority of whom are patristic scholars.
After discussing the scriptural foundations of theosis (predominantly the two key texts: Ps 82 [81 LXX]:1, 6–7 [cf. John 10:33–36] and 2 Pet 1:4) and their exegetical application in patristic theology, Russell emphasizes the testimonial importance of “the overall structure of the Bible”9 to the representation of deification, both for patristic and modern Orthodox thought.
The remainder of the book deals with the primary theological themes closely connected with theosis: image and likeness of God, the transfiguration of the believer, self-transcendence, participation in the divine life, and union with God. In each of these themes, Russell draws heavily on Greek patristic and monastic tradition and its appropriation in modern Orthodox, again, predominantly monastic and Neopatristic expression.
While some patristic authors did not draw a distinction between the image and likeness of God, for others the image of God was understood as setting the structural (ontological) basis for our relationship with God with its dynamic realization in divine likeness. The transfiguration of the believer is presented extensively in the context of the hesychastic tradition of unceasing prayer where Russell also briefly touches on the role of the vision of God in theosis.
Human self-transcendence, as fullness of human self-realization, occupies an important place in theosis that links human knowledge of the self with God and, through mystical rapture, establishes a dei-ficational relationship between God and the human person. This transcending self-realization, transformative and christological in its character and manifestation, is not the inherent potentiality of human nature, but the result of participation in divine grace through intellectual, ascetic, and liturgical aspects of Christian life. This apophatically expressed speculative mysticism of self-transcendence—deeply embedded in Neoplatonic philosophy, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and Maximus the Confessor with subsequent influence of hesychasm—acquires the leading role in the Eastern Orthodox understanding of theosis. Russell briefly points out how the influence of Berdyaev’s existentialist philosophy, significantly reinterpreted in the Neopatristic perspective by Vladimir Lossky, Christos Yannaras, and John Zizioulas, shapes the modern Orthodox response to personalist philosophy and its attempt to explain “how finite human beings can attain communion with a God who is personal and yet also infinite and supremely transcendent.”10
In the discussion of participation in the divine life, after briefly pointing out the meaning of the word “participation” in English and Greek, Russell concisely summarizes the main points of the patristic approach to participation in the context of deification, with its culmination in Gregory Palamas and subsequent influence of Palamism on modern Orthodox theology. Some uneasiness with Palamas’s essence/energy distinction in God—some offer the distinction full-hearted support (Lossky, Yannaras, and the majority