Does the Universe turn on a word? We need the help of Orthodox, Protestant, and
Roman theologians to find agreement concerning this word. The troublesome word is homoousia. This word has stirred as much controversy as
any other, through the centuries.
Historical
Development
In
the fourth century, there was no theologically acceptable word for the nature
of God. Prominent words were all
unsatisfactory, because they carried strong pagan implications with them. The Church pressed the word ousia, which
means property, into service after filling it with new meaning. This word occurs only twice, in Luke
15:12-13, in the story of the prodigal son.
The question within the Church was, “is the nature of the Son, homoousia
(the same), homoiousia (similar), or herteroousia (different) with relationship
to the Father?” The prevailing choice
was homoousia (the same), which seems simple to us; but this was a difficult
choice in 325. Some of the modern
English renderings of this word are one essence, one in Being, and one
substance. Unfortunately, the word
substance unintentionally implies a material physical relationship. Since the Scripture plainly states that God
is Spirit, this is impossible.
Consequently, we much prefer the rendering one essence.
Kinds
of Logic
Apophatic,
that is negative theology or logic, describes things only in the form of denial
of some element or principle: to use a common example found in some liturgies,
“God is uncreated.” Cataphatic, that is
positive theology or logic, describes things only in the form of affirmation of
some element or principle: to use another common example found in the same
liturgies, “God is consubstantial.” Wikipedia
and Marikablogs have detailed discussions of these topics.
Comparison
of Logical Approaches
Obviously,
both methods have value. There are
problems in logic that can only be solved with an apophatic method; while
others yield more readily to a cataphatic approach. So in the Scripture we find that, “God cannot
lie,” as well as, “God is love.” To deny
the value of either approach requires a wisdom greater than that of the
Apostles, and must be cast aside by thinking Christians. Such exclusivistic approaches may give us
some interesting things to think about, and this is a good thing. Yet, to push such approaches beyond meditation
and into an exclusivistic dogma is destructive.
Reality is not always either apophatic or cataphatic exclusively. Reality is best approached with a both
apophatic and cataphatic technique. It
is impossible to make, “God is not created,” cataphatic; and it is silly to
make, “God is love,” apophatic. At the
end of the day, the frank simplicity of Scripture must reign over all.
A
Simple View of the Nature of God
God
has essence, efforts, and effects. In
this view, essence is the basic nature of God, usually discussed through a list
of attributes. Efforts are God’s
activities, or works. Effects are all
the artifacts left behind because of God’s efforts.
Let’s
consider these effects. God speaks, and
things come into existence. In Genesis
1, God speaks and the Universe is created.
In Exodus 20, God speaks and the Law springs into being. We only know about God’s essence and efforts
because He describes them in His Word.
Without God’s Word, we cannot know about His essence and efforts at
all. However, with God’s Word we can
know about them, even though we cannot understand them. Even though we know about God’s essence and
efforts, we affirm that we cannot know God’s essence and efforts. There is a world of difference between knowing
something, and knowing about something.
A
Complicated View of the Nature of God
God
has essence, energies, efforts, and effects.
This view adds the element of energies to the Simple View; and folks
often describe it as, “essence and energies.”
What is different about this view is that all the attributes of God are
now placed in this new category, energies.
This leaves the category of essence absolutely empty. It does have the advantage of emphasizing the
unknowability of God. However, in this view
apophatic theology is usually pushed to its illogical extreme. So, technically, we can’t even talk about the
unknowability of God. There are three
very unfortunate things about this view.
Divisive
Problems Between the Two Views
One. It denies that the nature of God can be known
by His Revelation, especially where specific statements in Scripture talk about
God’s nature. It also denies that humans
have a right to draw logical conclusions from God’s effects about His efforts,
from His efforts about His energies, and from His energies about His
essence. While it is true that we must
be careful not to deny the Mystery of God, it is absurd to deny this line of
reasoning, especially where God’s Word specifically invites it.
Two. It creates the illusion that two people
standing side-by-side in worship recite the same Creed and are therefore in
absolute agreement. The reality is that
one may hold the Simple View and the other the Complicated View, and they don’t
agree at all. Their pictures of God and
Scripture are radically different.
Three. It has erected a wall of partition between
Christian brothers and sisters that is almost impossible to tear down. The very thing that The Creed was designed to
accomplish: namely, to draw Christian brothers and sisters together in love and
unity, is now destroyed by the meaning of a single word. As a result, many brothers and sisters in
Christ have become estranged from each other, and drift hopelessly farther and
farther apart with each passing year.
Moreover, the disagreement has even erupted in violence.
