An extraordinary and much-needed reflection, Father. You’ve named what many Western theologians have long intuited but hesitated to articulate: that our metaphysical language has quietly shaped a world that no longer expects to meet God. The distinction between essence and energies restores not only theological coherence but spiritual intimacy—it makes possible the lived experience of participation rather than mere assent. When divine simplicity is divorced from divine nearness, faith withers into abstraction; when simplicity is understood as shared, radiant being, the world is re-enchanted. Thank you for reminding us that transcendence and immanence were never meant to be rivals, but two sides of the same self-giving Logos.
Thank you. This article so wonderful describes the ache I have felt as a member of the disenchanted body of believers and provided such a thorough explanation of the ideas and concepts affecting us.
Tremendous! All the theological ins and outs are above my pay grade, but for me what your essay unveils, almost despite itself, is that the true heresy of modernity is not unbelief but disincarnation… the quiet conviction that God resides elsewhere. But the mystery of the Word made flesh abolishes “elsewhere”. The divine simplicity doesn’t exile God beyond the world but makes Him its very pulse. Every atom hums with His breath… every star, every sorrow, every grain of dust is radiant with the pressure of His presence. To live etsi Deus non daretur is to walk through a burning world and call it cold. The saints and poets saw more truly. God doesn’t hover over creation, He seeps through it, luminous and hidden, the fire beneath the veil of matter. The task of faith is not ascent, but awakening… to realize that we already move in the ocean of the uncreated, and that even our unbelief floats upon His being.
Thank you Father Hans. Difficult concepts to understand. Essence and energies of God. Somehow that ends the atheism of modernity. I am not sure I see it. But good try.
I wish I could have a sit-down chat with you about this. I was Orthodox right up until I married my (current, lovely) Anglican priest of a husband. The essence-energies distinction is such a difficult subject because, as you mention, it sometimes feels like splitting hairs. But I really do think the theological implications of uncreated grace are far reaching. Thanks for the lovely essay! I’m always encouraged by Anglican theologians who take the eastern tradition seriously.
Thanks very much for your kind encouragement. I agree about the far-reaching implications. Hopefully, I'll get to meet you and your husband at some point, and we'll talk it all out :-)
It seems to me that this distinction renders God utterly unknowable, seeing as what is “known,” or apprehended, is not the essence of God, but His energies or works. But, if I in knowing His works do not thereby apprehend His essence, what do I apprehend of Him? And, can I be sure that these “energies” truly represent to me and communicate the One whose they are? It seems, as I said, that this creates an unsurpassable rift in God’s Being, which actually threatens, if not atheism, then agnosticism, and an unknowable God.
If only you were teaching at Regent College while I was studying there!
>Traveling south from America, we may at some point say that we have arrived at or attained to Mexico without comprehending it, but we cannot say the same regarding God conceived of in terms of absolute simplicity.
Given the possibility of theosis/sanctification, we should in principle be able to map this (to some extent) in character-developmental terms that might transpire over time rather than space, yes?
Thanks, John! That's a great thought. Yes, the temporal metaphor (which is what it remains) is much better than the spatial. Very helpful! Oh, and sorry to have missed you at Regent :-)
By God's mercy I managed to get access to your lecture series on culture and church history while they were still available on audio. In my undergrad at UBC I became deeply drawn to the "problem" of universals. I very much look forward to your next book!
Your fine recent posts about the Nouvelle theologians and this one on Plotinus put me in mind a wider discussion that include the inimitable D B Hart in "We Are Gods" and especially Jordan Daniel Wood's recent book, "The Whole Mystery of Christ: Creation as Incarnation in Maximus the Confessor. It seems to me that you are at least walking in the same theological territory. I wonder if you would like to comment on your level of agreement or disagreement with these two current fellow travelers on the issue of Divine participation in the creation .
Thanks for this! There is lots of overlap between my understanding of things and that of Hart and Wood. I have been deeply shaped in the past number of years by Dionysius and Maximus. At the same time, I have differences with both Hart and Wood in places. It would take a lot to articulate the various agreements and disagreement, so I won’t do that here. My new book, the working title of Theopanizing Love, is with the publisher. It will be quite a while yet before it is out, but there I articulate my views in full.
If the One can have both internal energies and external energies that are different and yet both fully the One, can we go so far as saying the Son and Spirit are the external energies of God, while the Father is the internal? Or does that diminish the Son and Spirit in some way?
I am thinking of the connection between the Father and his Word. The Word is God and yet goes out from him.
NO, I don't think we can do that. Trinitarian language does not allow us to differentiate th persons so as to treat Son and/or Spirit as external energies. That would indeed diminish Son and Spirit. Maximus does speak of the Logos as both beyond being and being, so that the many logoi have to do with the being of God, as distinguished (not separated) from the beyond-being Logos.
An extraordinary and much-needed reflection, Father. You’ve named what many Western theologians have long intuited but hesitated to articulate: that our metaphysical language has quietly shaped a world that no longer expects to meet God. The distinction between essence and energies restores not only theological coherence but spiritual intimacy—it makes possible the lived experience of participation rather than mere assent. When divine simplicity is divorced from divine nearness, faith withers into abstraction; when simplicity is understood as shared, radiant being, the world is re-enchanted. Thank you for reminding us that transcendence and immanence were never meant to be rivals, but two sides of the same self-giving Logos.
Thank you. This article so wonderful describes the ache I have felt as a member of the disenchanted body of believers and provided such a thorough explanation of the ideas and concepts affecting us.
Tremendous! All the theological ins and outs are above my pay grade, but for me what your essay unveils, almost despite itself, is that the true heresy of modernity is not unbelief but disincarnation… the quiet conviction that God resides elsewhere. But the mystery of the Word made flesh abolishes “elsewhere”. The divine simplicity doesn’t exile God beyond the world but makes Him its very pulse. Every atom hums with His breath… every star, every sorrow, every grain of dust is radiant with the pressure of His presence. To live etsi Deus non daretur is to walk through a burning world and call it cold. The saints and poets saw more truly. God doesn’t hover over creation, He seeps through it, luminous and hidden, the fire beneath the veil of matter. The task of faith is not ascent, but awakening… to realize that we already move in the ocean of the uncreated, and that even our unbelief floats upon His being.
Thank you Father Hans. Difficult concepts to understand. Essence and energies of God. Somehow that ends the atheism of modernity. I am not sure I see it. But good try.
Keep up the good work- well written article.
I wish I could have a sit-down chat with you about this. I was Orthodox right up until I married my (current, lovely) Anglican priest of a husband. The essence-energies distinction is such a difficult subject because, as you mention, it sometimes feels like splitting hairs. But I really do think the theological implications of uncreated grace are far reaching. Thanks for the lovely essay! I’m always encouraged by Anglican theologians who take the eastern tradition seriously.
Thanks very much for your kind encouragement. I agree about the far-reaching implications. Hopefully, I'll get to meet you and your husband at some point, and we'll talk it all out :-)
It seems to me that this distinction renders God utterly unknowable, seeing as what is “known,” or apprehended, is not the essence of God, but His energies or works. But, if I in knowing His works do not thereby apprehend His essence, what do I apprehend of Him? And, can I be sure that these “energies” truly represent to me and communicate the One whose they are? It seems, as I said, that this creates an unsurpassable rift in God’s Being, which actually threatens, if not atheism, then agnosticism, and an unknowable God.
Thank you posting this father Boersma.
If only you were teaching at Regent College while I was studying there!
>Traveling south from America, we may at some point say that we have arrived at or attained to Mexico without comprehending it, but we cannot say the same regarding God conceived of in terms of absolute simplicity.
Given the possibility of theosis/sanctification, we should in principle be able to map this (to some extent) in character-developmental terms that might transpire over time rather than space, yes?
Thanks, John! That's a great thought. Yes, the temporal metaphor (which is what it remains) is much better than the spatial. Very helpful! Oh, and sorry to have missed you at Regent :-)
By God's mercy I managed to get access to your lecture series on culture and church history while they were still available on audio. In my undergrad at UBC I became deeply drawn to the "problem" of universals. I very much look forward to your next book!
Your fine recent posts about the Nouvelle theologians and this one on Plotinus put me in mind a wider discussion that include the inimitable D B Hart in "We Are Gods" and especially Jordan Daniel Wood's recent book, "The Whole Mystery of Christ: Creation as Incarnation in Maximus the Confessor. It seems to me that you are at least walking in the same theological territory. I wonder if you would like to comment on your level of agreement or disagreement with these two current fellow travelers on the issue of Divine participation in the creation .
Thanks for this! There is lots of overlap between my understanding of things and that of Hart and Wood. I have been deeply shaped in the past number of years by Dionysius and Maximus. At the same time, I have differences with both Hart and Wood in places. It would take a lot to articulate the various agreements and disagreement, so I won’t do that here. My new book, the working title of Theopanizing Love, is with the publisher. It will be quite a while yet before it is out, but there I articulate my views in full.
Good read 👏🏽
If the One can have both internal energies and external energies that are different and yet both fully the One, can we go so far as saying the Son and Spirit are the external energies of God, while the Father is the internal? Or does that diminish the Son and Spirit in some way?
I am thinking of the connection between the Father and his Word. The Word is God and yet goes out from him.
NO, I don't think we can do that. Trinitarian language does not allow us to differentiate th persons so as to treat Son and/or Spirit as external energies. That would indeed diminish Son and Spirit. Maximus does speak of the Logos as both beyond being and being, so that the many logoi have to do with the being of God, as distinguished (not separated) from the beyond-being Logos.