Cappadocian Fathers and Immanuel Kant

Anyone who tries to describe the ineffable Light in language is truly a liar – not because he hates the truth but because of the inadequacy of his description.
- St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.330 – c.395)

Some of our discussions have made me think of two topics. The first is Apophatic Theology and the second is Experiential Theology. They are both related, so I'll write about each.

Apophatic Theology is the process of not saying what God is, but rather, what He is not. Likewise, those attributes that He is are known to be beyond our understanding. Ultimately, we can't know God in His fullness. The quote above touches on that, as does this excerpt from the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston:

The Eastern Church approaches God from an apophatic point of view…a negation that describes what God is not. In other words, while the West says “God is love, good, holy, etc”, the East says, “Yes, God is love, good, holy, etc.; yet He is beyond love, good, holiness, etc. as we comprehend these terms.” God is beyond our imagination, beyond our scope of understanding, beyond any manner of human description. God understands us; we do not understand Him. But through His love, mercy, compassion and grace, He allows the Holy Spirit to work in us and to allow us a miniscule taste of the experience of His Holy Presence.

Here is where I get stuck, and where my dialogue with Edwin has been difficult. Adam and Eve did walk in the Garden in a state of purity and innocence. St. Gregory of Nyssa said that, despite that, they had not achieved the fullness of what God wanted for them. The Incarnation would have occurred regardless to take us to the next level, the one where we have union with God in greater fullness. This fullness is sometimes believed to have been witnessed at the Transfiguration when Moses and Elijah were with Christ, each shining with such holiness that the disciples had to shield their eyes. This was post-Incarnation.

But this also happened pre-Incarnation with Moses when he saw the back of God and spoke with Him. His face glowed such that he had to veil it. I could explain this away by saying that the Incarnation went into effect as soon as man fell, but I'm not sure. But here's the key to each of these. This is not a super "understanding" of God in the gnostic sense, but an experiential walking with God which rendered them glorified.

Back to philosophy, and something I've written about before. Immanuel Kant wrote about Ding an Sich or Things in Themselves. We don't know a quarter in itself. It looks silver, but we receive that by our senses and, thus, don't truly know its color. We think it round, but our vision can be distorted, thus, we do not know its true shape. We know the quarter AS WE EXPERIENCE IT, but not AS IT IS. It is the same with God. We know Him as we experience Him, but not as He is.

The Cappadocian Fathers; Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa; addressed the question of how it is possible for humans to have knowledge of a transcendent and unknowable God. They (especially Nyssa) drew a distinction between knowing God in His essence (Greek ousia) and knowing God in His energies (Greek energeiai), although workings or activities is probably a more appropriate English translation, since it avoids the esoteric connotations the word energies has acquired today. They maintained the orthodox doctrine that it remains impossible to know God in His essence (to know who God is in and of Himself), but possible to know God in His energies (to know what God does, and who He is in relation to the creation and to man), as God reveals himself to humanity.

So the Orthodox (again, I apologize for blithely expressing this in terms of West and East) don't seek the Scholastic "understanding" of God, but the "experience" of God. Here's the thing that I find somehwat paradoxical in Orthodox theology. They insist on unity of Faith in much more depth than, it seems, any other Christian branch in order to be considered part of the Body. In that sense, it must be known and believed in a corporate manner. Yet, in its most full expression, Orthodox theology is about a very personal, inexpressible, walking with God which changes the walker in a way that cannot be known corporately. This is evidenced by Western and Eastern understanding of the word theology. Western theology, as popularly concieved, is an almost academic undertaking. An atheist can know Western theology as well as a Christian. Yet, in the East, this is not possible as theology entails the understanding that comes from the relationship, something that cannnot be shared. A quote from the later Cloud of Unknowing, influenced by St. Denis (whose works Aaron knows well) expressed this nicely:

Our intense need to understand will always be a powerful stumbling block to our attempts to reach God in simple love, and must always be overcome. For if you do not overcome this need to understand, it will undermine your quest. It will replace the darkness which you have pierced to reach God with clear images of something which, however good, however beautiful, however Godlike, is not God. And so I urge you, go after experience rather than knowledge. On account of pride, knowledge may often deceive you, but this gentle, loving affection will not deceive you. Knowledge tends to breed conceit, but love builds. Knowledge is full of labor, but love, full of rest.

In an entirely different thread, let me know how you fare on these tests: