Yes, I think there's truth to what you're saying re. Zizioulas--though I don't know the details. You may be interested in this article: Jaroslav Skira, "The Ecological Bishop: John Zizioulas' Theology of Creation." Toronto Journal of Theology, 19, no. 2 (2003): 199–214.
I do not deal with ecological implications in my book. I'm very sympathetic, though, to Zizioulas's view of man as the priest creation.
https://substack.com/@footnotes2plato @footnotes2plato Matthew Segall would be a great thinker from the process world to interact with this book. Great conversations would come from this.
Congratulations!! This looks wonderful and I’m looking forward to purchasing it for our parish bookstore. Hildegard Von Bingen has come up multiple times this past week! We studied her life and music in our parish homeschool coop a few years ago. I just listened to a podcast about Hildegard College, a new school inspired by her.
Very much looking forward to this one. The cover does not disappoint. Having just read T.F. Torrance's book Royal Priesthood (1955) where he takes a couple of passing swipes at Dionysius and the neoplatonic tradition, I look forward to a robust counterpoint.
Thanks for the heads-up. I wasn't familiar with Coleman's book. I'm afraid I don't engage Ulrich in my book--despite my TA's pleading with me to do so. He is obviously a great theologian, though my approach differs in places from his. (I'm defending immateralism in my new book.) Thanks again!
Thanks! Yes, it does build on this in some ways, in the sense that it asks again the question of how we can participate in the life of God in the hereafter. My response has changed slightly. I now use the essence-energies distinction to argue for this. Also, Theophanizing Love is much more of a constructive effort, setting forth my own metaphysical ideas more directly than in Seeing God.
In your post, you use the phrase “panentheistic metaphysic” in a positive way. My intuitive theological alarms are going off saying, “That can’t be correct. Isn’t panentheism heterodox?” At same time, however, I have often thought that verses like Eph. 4:6, Rom. 11:36, and Act 17:28 must be grounded is something like a Christian panentheistic metaphysics?
Do you think a panentheistic metaphysics entails something in addition to a Christain Platonism/Neoplatonism of the Fathers? Additionally, if reality is grounded in a panentheistic metaphysics, how do we maintain the real distinction between God and creation/creatures? Would you say that the participatory metaphysics that you laid out in Heavenly Participation is a sort of Christain pantheism?
I wish someone would invite you and Dr. Andrew Davison onto their podcast to have a conversation about the similarities and differences of your respective metaphysical frameworks. I think that would be clarifying.
Thanks, Derek, for your very fair and good question. The vision laid out in "Heavenly Participation" is, basically, pan-en-theistic (not pantheistic)--though I do not use the term in that book. Everything that exists, exists by participating in the being of God--while God infinitely transcends creaturely beings (which is the key difference with pantheism). You may want to have a look at this article of mine: https://hansboersma.org/p/doesgodhaveabody. I devote a separate chapter to panentheism in my forthcoming book "Theophanizing Love." Finally, I should note that my patristic understanding of panentheism differs from process theology, which I think undermines divine transcendence. The way Maximus and others retain the creator-creature distinction is by means of the notion of God as beyond-being (hyperousios) and by insisting that participation in God's being is merely analogical or participatory.
I hope this helps. I love my friend Andrew Davison's excellent book on participation--he tends to be more Thomistic, while I am more Eastern.
Fr. Boersma, thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it. I will read the article you linked. May I send a follow up question after I read it? I’m looking forward to your new book. Are you working on a multi volume project on participation?
Are you familiar with Sebastian Morello’s, Creation is God’s Icon? Is that still too Weatern or does his interpretation of St. Thomas get closer to your vision?
May I ask an ecclesiastical question? How would you describe the variety of Anglicanism with which your church identifies? I realize it’s a part of the ACNA. If you use a term like Anglo- Catholicism, would you mind, as briefly as you would like, to describe what you mean by that term or whatever term you decide to use?
I don’t know if there is any sort of church planting network associated with Nashota House, but Owensboro, KY could use a vibrant traditionally Anglican Church. It is a city of about 60,000
Fr. Hans, the cover looks great and I'm Looking forward to reading the book! I'm wondering if your own development on the views of Energy/Essence shows up here.
So I learned a new word today: panentheism! Looking forward to your book. As a science teacher I’m especially hoping there is an ecological component.
Is it true that Met. John Zizioulas, interpreting St Maximus, provided the theological groundwork to argue for the necessity of an ecological ethic in modern Christianity? Or was there another before him? Thanks Fr Hans!
Fr Boersma, I’ve had a keen interest in theophany since I took a deep divine into Dionysius the Areopagite several years ago. Unfortunately I haven’t found a satisfactory contemporary treatment of the topic. I’m very much looking forward to this book of yours.
Indeed we do! As I mentioned, theophany has now been a favorite category of mine since reading Dionysius, and I look for every opportunity to toss the word into one of my articles, even though I lack the competence to explain or defend it—hence my eagerness to read your book. I love your writings. I think we may disagree on the Palamite distinction, but I appreciate the way you laid it out in your recent article.
I still remember fondly our conversation over breakfast (or was it lunch?) at Nashotah House several years ago. I was there for Fr John Behr’s summer course on St Irenaeus and St Gregory of Nyssa, and you were visiting Nashotah with your son.
To my embarrassment, I have to admit I don’t remember our conversation at Nashotah House. Probably, or at least I hope, I would remember if I saw you again. Hopefully we will meet at the House again before long. Thanks so much for your writing and also for your encouragement!
Yes, I think there's truth to what you're saying re. Zizioulas--though I don't know the details. You may be interested in this article: Jaroslav Skira, "The Ecological Bishop: John Zizioulas' Theology of Creation." Toronto Journal of Theology, 19, no. 2 (2003): 199–214.
I do not deal with ecological implications in my book. I'm very sympathetic, though, to Zizioulas's view of man as the priest creation.
https://substack.com/@footnotes2plato @footnotes2plato Matthew Segall would be a great thinker from the process world to interact with this book. Great conversations would come from this.
I can’t wait to read this. Congratulations Fr Hans!
Beautiful cover!
Excited to hold it in my hands.
I haven't read the book, yet. But I can pray that my life becomes a symphony of theophany. Thank you for illuminating this for me. :)
Wonderful, Hans! It is on my list! Thank you for your deep thinking and desire to draw us more deeply into the love of Christ.
Cannot wait!! Thank you for your work and labor.
Congratulations!! This looks wonderful and I’m looking forward to purchasing it for our parish bookstore. Hildegard Von Bingen has come up multiple times this past week! We studied her life and music in our parish homeschool coop a few years ago. I just listened to a podcast about Hildegard College, a new school inspired by her.
Very much looking forward to this one. The cover does not disappoint. Having just read T.F. Torrance's book Royal Priesthood (1955) where he takes a couple of passing swipes at Dionysius and the neoplatonic tradition, I look forward to a robust counterpoint.
Beautiful! And as always look forward to reading it!
Thanks for the heads-up. I wasn't familiar with Coleman's book. I'm afraid I don't engage Ulrich in my book--despite my TA's pleading with me to do so. He is obviously a great theologian, though my approach differs in places from his. (I'm defending immateralism in my new book.) Thanks again!
Thanks! Yes, it does build on this in some ways, in the sense that it asks again the question of how we can participate in the life of God in the hereafter. My response has changed slightly. I now use the essence-energies distinction to argue for this. Also, Theophanizing Love is much more of a constructive effort, setting forth my own metaphysical ideas more directly than in Seeing God.
Doesn't there counterpunch the definition of the word (as I understand it)?
Fr. Boersma,
In your post, you use the phrase “panentheistic metaphysic” in a positive way. My intuitive theological alarms are going off saying, “That can’t be correct. Isn’t panentheism heterodox?” At same time, however, I have often thought that verses like Eph. 4:6, Rom. 11:36, and Act 17:28 must be grounded is something like a Christian panentheistic metaphysics?
Do you think a panentheistic metaphysics entails something in addition to a Christain Platonism/Neoplatonism of the Fathers? Additionally, if reality is grounded in a panentheistic metaphysics, how do we maintain the real distinction between God and creation/creatures? Would you say that the participatory metaphysics that you laid out in Heavenly Participation is a sort of Christain pantheism?
I wish someone would invite you and Dr. Andrew Davison onto their podcast to have a conversation about the similarities and differences of your respective metaphysical frameworks. I think that would be clarifying.
Thanks, Derek, for your very fair and good question. The vision laid out in "Heavenly Participation" is, basically, pan-en-theistic (not pantheistic)--though I do not use the term in that book. Everything that exists, exists by participating in the being of God--while God infinitely transcends creaturely beings (which is the key difference with pantheism). You may want to have a look at this article of mine: https://hansboersma.org/p/doesgodhaveabody. I devote a separate chapter to panentheism in my forthcoming book "Theophanizing Love." Finally, I should note that my patristic understanding of panentheism differs from process theology, which I think undermines divine transcendence. The way Maximus and others retain the creator-creature distinction is by means of the notion of God as beyond-being (hyperousios) and by insisting that participation in God's being is merely analogical or participatory.
I hope this helps. I love my friend Andrew Davison's excellent book on participation--he tends to be more Thomistic, while I am more Eastern.
Fr. Boersma, thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it. I will read the article you linked. May I send a follow up question after I read it? I’m looking forward to your new book. Are you working on a multi volume project on participation?
Are you familiar with Sebastian Morello’s, Creation is God’s Icon? Is that still too Weatern or does his interpretation of St. Thomas get closer to your vision?
May I ask an ecclesiastical question? How would you describe the variety of Anglicanism with which your church identifies? I realize it’s a part of the ACNA. If you use a term like Anglo- Catholicism, would you mind, as briefly as you would like, to describe what you mean by that term or whatever term you decide to use?
I don’t know if there is any sort of church planting network associated with Nashota House, but Owensboro, KY could use a vibrant traditionally Anglican Church. It is a city of about 60,000
Fr. Hans, the cover looks great and I'm Looking forward to reading the book! I'm wondering if your own development on the views of Energy/Essence shows up here.
Thanks, Cliff! Yes, it does.
So I learned a new word today: panentheism! Looking forward to your book. As a science teacher I’m especially hoping there is an ecological component.
Is it true that Met. John Zizioulas, interpreting St Maximus, provided the theological groundwork to argue for the necessity of an ecological ethic in modern Christianity? Or was there another before him? Thanks Fr Hans!
Fr Boersma, I’ve had a keen interest in theophany since I took a deep divine into Dionysius the Areopagite several years ago. Unfortunately I haven’t found a satisfactory contemporary treatment of the topic. I’m very much looking forward to this book of yours.
Thanks, Fr. Aidan! I hope you will enjoy it. I subscribe to your substack, and it seems we have lots in common.
Indeed we do! As I mentioned, theophany has now been a favorite category of mine since reading Dionysius, and I look for every opportunity to toss the word into one of my articles, even though I lack the competence to explain or defend it—hence my eagerness to read your book. I love your writings. I think we may disagree on the Palamite distinction, but I appreciate the way you laid it out in your recent article.
I still remember fondly our conversation over breakfast (or was it lunch?) at Nashotah House several years ago. I was there for Fr John Behr’s summer course on St Irenaeus and St Gregory of Nyssa, and you were visiting Nashotah with your son.
To my embarrassment, I have to admit I don’t remember our conversation at Nashotah House. Probably, or at least I hope, I would remember if I saw you again. Hopefully we will meet at the House again before long. Thanks so much for your writing and also for your encouragement!
BTW, I am a Nashotah House alumnus—class of 1980.
Not to worry. I’m an exceptionally forgettable person. Just ask my wife. 😜