*5.2. The Concept of Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology in the Work of Emil Bartos,*

Perhaps the most fundamental topic in Christianity is Salvation. God the Father sends His Son into the world in order to save it (John 3, 16). Since in the orthodox and evangelical theology salvation is understood differently, we must first start by asking ourselves what salvation is: the result of a unique event when a person is saved and "born again", a continuous process or both. This possible point of convergence is identified by Bartos, who offers an analysis of Stăniloae's teachings about deification, as well as about orthodox theology in general.

Bartos, notes that Stăniloae defines deification as the "man's potential experience of participation in the life of the Trinity through the help of the divine uncreated energies" (Bartos, 1997, p. 341). Deification is then expressed in a dogmatic form. "Stăniloae asserts the relationship between nature and grace and the possibility of participation in God as a fundamental insight in his theology. God created humanity's history in order to bring it to deification by His own power and will." (Bartos, 1997, pp. 341–42).

Since this process is defined simultaneously as a movement of ascent (from human being to God) and a movement of descent (from God towards human beings), Bartos, thinks that this position presents the advantage of allowing us "to speak coherently about God as transcendent, yet intimately involved with us, and about man as a personal being destined to share in the life of supreme personal existence while remaining a creature. It does so in conformity with scriptural revelation, Christian experience and tradition by showing how creation and especially human beings are distinct but not separate from God." (Bartos, 1997, p. 342).

Although Bartos, identifies in Stăniloae's work a tendency of excessive spiritualisation, and a propensity to spend more time in dialogue with tradition than with contemporaries, he still appreciates the fact that "Stăniloae has provided us with a way of speaking about man's destiny which resonates with the ethical and realistic models of deification." (Bartos, 1997, p. 342).

For Bartos, , it is thus clear that "Stăniloae's distinctive theology, besides being itself an exciting catalyst in the process of theological development, in orthodox theology in general and in Romanian orthodox theology in particular, is also very well placed to offer a normative contribution to the dialogue within contemporary theology, around his original ideas in the sphere of epistemology, anthropology, Christology, pneumatology, or ecclesiology." (Bartos, 1997, pp. 341–44).

In Building Bridges: Between the Orthodox and Evangelical Traditions, a volume dedicated to the dialogue between the orthodox and the evangelicals, Bartos, concludes that evangelical protestants are pleasantly surprised by the way in which orthodox theologians apply the concept of deification in a Christological context. To be deified means to be in the likeness of Christ and to be united with Him. Although protestant theologians such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, German pietists and English puritans, discussed the unification with God, the concept is understood differently in the orthodox tradition. While Protestants insist on a personal unification, a personal identification with the person of Christ, the orthodox choose the path of a mystical unification, interpreted ontologically. Personal union, Bartos, notes, is based on the experience of a personal relationship between

Christ and the believer, a relation that involves living a moral life, as the faithful is inhabited by the Holy Spirit (Bartos, 2012, pp. 48–49).

Bartos,'s distinction is only partially valid, since if we examine closely this aspect, we will find several points of convergence between the two traditions. In orthodox thinking, the ontological discourse is personalist. Only on a conceptual level do we use the categories being or/and essence and person or/and hypostasis. In the orthodox world view, nature cannot be conceived as an abstract existence, it is implicitly hypostasized. That is why, even when we use ontological terms, they are used as being implicitly hypostasized in concrete personal existence. Another evangelical author who studied Stăniloae's theology, Silviu E. Rogobete, notices this and even emphasizes the fact that Stăniloae uses the term personalisation as a synonym for deification (Rogobete 2001, p. 235). In this context, personalisation refers especially to the personal relationship between the human being and Christ, a relation in which, in a sense, all other human beings are included.

Bartos, also remarks that the mystical union is meant for a spiritual elite in the orthodox Church (Bartos, 2012, p. 49), and it is somehow refused to or hard to attain by the other Christians. The observation is indeed partially correct, but it is important to mention here that theosis is not synonymous with salvation in the orthodox view, although deification does occupy a central place in orthodox soteriology. So, although the final stages of deification can only be reached by a "spiritual elite", this does not mean that those on the path to deification, even if they do not reach the final stages of perfection, have not walked the path to theosis to an extent. Grigore Mos, synthetizes the orthodox teaching on theosis by identifying 5 categories of human beings: those who reach perfection, the saints, the righteous, the sinners who are saved and, finally, the sinners who are not saved (Mos, 2021, sec. 3). This enumeration is, in fact, a development in a patristic key of the exchange between the young man and Jesus about salvation, the acquiring of the eternal life or of perfection (Matthew 19, pp. 16–21).

Those who have reached perfection are extremely few, perhaps one or two in a generation. They are completely purified of their passions, they have reached their human potential completely, through the works of grace in them. They are filled with grace, completely united with God, completely in the likeness of Christ, in a state of maximum deification, as much as the conditions of this world allow it. The saints, on the other hand, are the people of God through whom His work in Church or in the world is done. They are on their way to perfection/theosis, but have not made it until the very end. They are filled with grace in different degrees, and the grace in them is particularly powerful. They can be models for other people in many different ways, due to their diversity of gifts and charismas, the human condition or their social or cultural background, as well as their works through which they sanctified themselves and the world around them. They do not need to be entirely purified of their passions. There are many saints who confessed certain weaknesses or imperfections. The righteous are those who live a moral life, who are oriented towards good, but the grace of God in them does not visibly work towards the others or towards the world. Besides their goodness, morality and obvious virtues, they can have hidden sins and passions, often concerning their spiritual life. As God told Prophet Elijah, He always has His righteous people (1 Kings 19: 18) who often do not stand out through something spectacular, the way the saints do, for example. The sinners who are saved are those in whom the victory of evil is not complete, who have not entirely given up the fight or their hope, who still have their faith through which they can be saved (Hebrews 10: 38), who can get back up after they fall, who, when facing crucial decisions, choose light, even if it's on their death bed. We can hope that many people fall into this category and very few remain outside of it. As for the sinners who are not saved, not much can be said. It is a mystery and God's decision". (Mos, 2021, sec. 3).

This classification offers a brief overview of the state of those saved through their faith and through a moment of personal choice to be with God, but also the dynamic of the process of deification.

While Bartos, appreciates the orthodox perspective on some of the important aspects of salvation, he also feels this perspective ignores the fact that the relation between human beings and God was completely destroyed. Eastern theology, Bartos, notes, avoids describing the human being as being in a state of total corruption so as to be able to talk about possible healing. For Bartos, , such approaches must be regarded as representing a simplistic and unfinished soteriology. That is why, he continues, the evangelicals can accept some of the orthodox theories only as being complementary to their own, but never fundamental (Bartos, 2012, p. 50).

The difference identified by Bartos, is indeed a substantial theological difference between the orthodox and the western, evangelical perspective. According to orthodox theology, through Adam's fall, human nature was altered, but it was not completely destroyed. There is in fact a difference here, as orthodox theology discusses the consequences of Adam's fall on an ontological level, while evangelical theology focuses on human beings' relationship with God. So, there is no contradiction per se. From an orthodox perspective, just like from an evangelical perspective, the fall did lead to the destruction of the relation with God and that is why the restoration of the human being could only be done by God Himself. However, orthodox theology avoids using the idea of complete destruction when referring to human nature. If human nature is destroyed, then this would result in the transformation of human nature into something else or would lead to its disappearance. It is as if existence would turn into nonexistence. Thus, with some terminological clarifications, we can find points of convergence in this field as well.

Theosis understood as perichoresis by Bartos, opens up, in Corneliu C. Simut,'s opinion, four possible pathways for dialogue between Baptists and orthodox. The first one would consist of the "acknowledgement that the doctrine of deification, in its Greek Patristic and Eastern Orthodox formulations, is inspired by scripture." (Simut, 2021, p. 125). The second way would be related to the willingness of both traditions to discuss more controversial doctrines. For example, "baptists should be ready and willing to delve into the complexity of deification and Eastern Orthodox should be equally ready and willing to investigate the validity of justification as instrumental for salvation." (Simut, 2021, p. 125). The third way would be to thoroughly understand how certain fundamental concepts, such as perichoresis, are being used by the opposite tradition (Simut, 2021, p. 125). A fourth pathway would be "that both parties should be aware of the "delicate balance" the dialogue needs to keep between scripture, tradition, Christian experience, the logic and dynamics of philosophical systems, and their own presuppositions." (Simut, 2021, p. 126). Thus, in Simut,'s view, Bartos,'s understanding of theosis as perichoresis "can realistically become a major locus for the theological encounter between Baptists and Eastern Orthodox in the years to come, precisely because deification links anthropology with soteriology" (Simut, 2021, p. 126).

Furthermore, Bartos, mentions that many of the Christological elements one encounters in the orthodox tradition are highly appreciated by the evangelicals, especially the centrality of Christ in salvation, the unity, His divinity and humanity, His role in the life of the Church or in the life of the faithful. Another one of his remarks concerns the fact that orthodox theology prefers to consider incarnation as the most significant moment in the divine revelation, the one that fundamentally determines the way in which Christian soteriology is understood. By placing such emphasis on the human nature of the Son, Bartos, adds, the manger becomes the focal point rather than cross, the emphasis is on Bethlehem, not on Golgotha. Although the evangelical theologian agrees that Jesus recapitulated in Himself the entire humanity in order to restore it, he still points to the fact that in the gospel these elements that are indeed part of the salvation process are nevertheless secondary. The peak of Christ's life is to be found on the cross, not in the manger. Christ did not come to solve the tensions that resulted from a fallen nature, but to die so that we can be reconciled with God, so that we can receive forgiveness for our sins and a new life from above (Bartos, 2012, pp. 48–51).

Although the points emphasised by Bartos, are valid, I think we can still reach a point of convergence for the topics mentioned. Extremely helpful from this point of view is a chapter entitled "What did Bethlehem and Golgotha bring?", from Dumitru Stăniloae's Jesus Christ and the restoration of the human being. Stăniloae explains that, through the incarnation, God came into our closest proximity for eternity, while through His death on the cross and through His resurrection he freed us from our spiritual death, He raised us up to a state in which we can find communion with Him. The basis for this communion was put through His incarnation. His sacrifice has such power that it breaks us free from our spiritual numbness, it shows us the way out of this dull existence to a place where we can meet Him as God. This is what a new life means. The Cross is thus a natural consequence, the final step of God's love towards human beings. Through the cross, God's communion with us is perfected (Stăniloae 1993, p. 97). Thus, through His saving work, which begins with His incarnation, continues with His death on the Cross, His resurrection, then His ascension to heaven, He deifies the entire human nature in Himself. In our worldly life, a person's deeds have repercussions on those around us. One can perhaps create an institution, formulate a doctrine or produce a work of art, and all of these can influence the lives of others. But Christ does not save us through works or deeds separated from His being, but through a saving work in which His person is present. It is not Christ's death or resurrection, as independent acts, that constitute the centre of Apostle Paul's theology, but Christ the Crucified and the Risen One, because His deeds cannot be separated from His person (Popescu 2005, p. 223).

John Behr, for example, offers a meditation about the dimensions and the implications of the fact that Christ shows us what it means to be God by the way that He dies on the Cross as a human being, and simultaneously showing us what it means to be truly human. The words He says on the Cross—"It is finished" (John 19, 30)—are interpreted as the end of the act of creation of the human being. In Genesis 1, 26, God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" and then, on the Cross, He says "It is finished". That is when creation is complete, so the Cross is the central event (Behr 2018, pp. 20–21).

Thus, as we see, Bartos,'s analysis of the notion of deification in orthodox theology opens up the possibility of a dialogue with evangelical theology, since soteriology offers great potential when it comes to finding points of ecumenical convergence.

## *5.3. The Perichoretic Model of the Church in the Work of Dănut, Mănăstireanu*

Ecclesiology is an important aspect of orthodox theology. Additionally, whether one belongs or not to the Church seems to play an important part in the ecumenical dialogue. Obviously, what constitutes the limits of the Church is a topic intensely discussed even among orthodox theologians. Although they have not reached an agreement, we do know that the Great Council of Crete from 2016 accepts "the historical name of other non-orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her" (Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World 2016, p. 6). As far as the orthodox communities are concerned, although there are certain local accents, the ecclesiology is unitary and the visible element that consecrate the unity of the Church is the Eucharistic communion, the sharing of the same chalice for the members of different local orthodox churches. On the other hand, in the evangelical tradition, the importance of the local churches is so high that it is difficult to find a voice that speaks for all the evangelicals (Bunaciu 2012, p. 115).

I will limit the scope of the article to the Romanian context and, for this purpose, I will analyse Mănăstireanu's approach to ecclesiology in the orthodox and the evangelical traditions. His position, by his own account, is rather difficult: "As an ecumenical evangelical, I was always getting caught in the crossfire—from the orthodox side, for being an evangelical (meaning sectarian and schismatic, if not an outright heretic); from the evangelical side, for being ecumenical (meaning confused and ready to compromise with the "enemy"). Even so, I am convinced that, as an evangelical living in a predominantly orthodox environment, I have the unique opportunity of developing a contextual evangelical

theology in dialogue with this ancient Christian tradition. Furthermore, I believe that no other area in evangelical theology is more in need of a fresh perspective than ecclesiology. I am convinced that without this, in spite of its present expansion, evangelicalism will have no future" (Mănăstireanu 2012, p. 11).

When discussing Stăniloae's ecclesiology, Mănăstireanu proposes as a basis for the analysis the Trinitarian perichoresis and he motivates his choice as follows: "Being an icon of the Holy Trinity, the Church is called to reflect in her spatiotemporal reality, in Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit, the dynamic relationships existing eternally between the divine persons, as described by the concept of trinitarian perichoresis." Mănăstireanu then discusses several implications that follow from this. Firstly, since she exists in history, the Church is not yet perfect. Secondly, since the Church is an image of the Holy Trinity, she is called to prolong the relation of communion at the level of the Christian community. Thirdly, the Church extends in the community the ontological unity of the Trinity, but also the "functional asymmetry" of the divine persons. Therefore, "a Church reflecting this model can be neither strictly and rigidly hierarchical, nor radically egalitarian. Moreover, such an understanding will exclude a view of the true Church as consisting merely of the clergy, with the role of laity thereby reduced to the state of mere passive onlookers." (Mănăstireanu 2012, pp. 127–28).

The perichoretic model applied by Mănăstireanu to Stăniloae's ecclesiology allowed the highlighting of the eschatological dimension of the Church, her relationship with the world and the complementarity of the laity and the clergy in Church.

Still, in orthodox theology, we speak of an inaugurated eschatology, not one that has been fulfilled. That being said, the idea that orthodox spirituality encourages indifference towards life in this world is not supported. Rather, orthodox spirituality encourages us to avoid what Stăniloae calls "a premature eschatologism" (Stăniloae 2002, p. 30). Failing to creatively assume history and the world leads to a disembodied ecclesiology, an ecclesiology that no longer embraces the world the way it is, imperfect and fallen, but tries to recreate an imagined perfect kingdom here on earth, which although appears to be motivated by religious ideas, falls more into the realm of ideology. There are many religious groups concerned with making the world a better place and who are willing to resort to violence for this purpose. They are, in a way, the effect of adopting an optimistic eschatology. The orthodox ecclesiology proposes an inaugurated eschatology, to which we relate prophetically, and which can be applied in mission in general, in the ecumenical dialogues among various Christian communities, as well as in the Christian witness in a postmodern world (Sonea 2020, p. 76), in the sense that we must live as if we have already been integrated into the Kingdom of God, but not fully, and so we apply a prophetic diakrisis on the entire human life, both on a personal level or the level of the community, seeing the world through a Christian filter.

When analysing Stăniloae's ecclesiology, Mănăstireanu notices a contextual element he considers relevant in the effort to identify points of ecumenical convergence: the fact that all Romanian Christians, regardless of their confession, suffered under the communist regime and because of the effects of the Marxist ideology, which are still very much present in the Romanian society: "the ecclesial community is rooted in a Christological understanding of the human person as "the image of Christ" ... this is particularly important in a postcommunist context, where the dignity of the human person still suffers from having been systematically undermined by the previously dominant collectivistic Marxist ideology." (Mănăstireanu 2012, p. 294).

Mănăstireanu also offers a few critical remarks regarding Stăniloae's ecclesiology. He identifies a certain deficiency in the life of the Orthodox Church: "Orthodoxy in general, he notes, have not been able to formulate practical guidelines for the application of the ecclesiology that they promote" (Mănăstireanu 2012, p. 296). The observation is valid and perhaps a good example can be considered the current crisis from Ukraine, where the Ecumenical Patriarchy has recognized the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which later led to the Russian Orthodox Church breaking the communion with the churches

that have officially recognised the orthodox Church of Ukraine. Furthermore, the principle of conciliarity remains suspended at the superior level of the Church hierarchy, although both from a theological and a statutory standpoint, there are enough arguments that laity should be involved in the decision-making process (see: Statutul pentru organizarea s,i funct,ionarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române 2020, p. 90). However, we must note here that, unlike other Orthodox Churches, the Romanian Orthodox has a long tradition of involving laity in the life of the Church, starting with the 19th century metropolitan of Transylvania, Andrei ¸Saguna (see: Schneider 2008).

In Mănăstireanu's view, an important point of convergence for the two traditions would be the role of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in ecclesiology. He notes that Stăniloae, for example, keeps a balance between the roles of the Two, while in catholic and protestant ecclesiology, there is often an imbalance (inclining towards Christology for Catholics and towards pneumatology for protestants) (Mănăstireanu 2012, p. 264). That is why, Mănăstireanu agrees with Stăniloae's Trinitarian ecclesiology and considers it a good model for all Christian traditions: "Given its Trinitarian coherence and measure of balance, Stăniloae's doctrine of the Church constitutes a model worth following (albeit in a critical manner) not only by younger orthodox ecclesiologists, but also by ecclesiologists from other Christian traditions, including evangelicalism" (Mănăstireanu 2012, p. 298).

This conclusion fits with that of the orthodox theologian Viorel Coman who notes that "Staniloae's Trinitarian theology is extremely relevant for the doctrine of the Church, for his balanced ecclesiological synthesis between Christology and pneumatology was constructed in light of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Trinity". In Coman's view, Staniloae's understanding of the inseparable union between the Son and the Holy Spirit guided his understanding of the unity between Christology and pneumatology in the history of salvation and ecclesiology. Thus, Coman sees Staniloae as a unique voice among Orthodox theologians "who articulated a synthesis between the work of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the life and spirituality of the Church. That being so, the Romanian theologian's ecclesiology avoids the criticism related to the practical implications of the strict monopatrist model of the Trinity." (Coman 2019, p. 266).

#### **6. Conclusions**

The Romanian orthodox and evangelicals seem to have found common ground by adopting similar positions in the debates concerning moral issues that take place in today's public space. However, unless it is doubled by a serious theological dialogue which deals with deeper matters, this common ground risks remaining a superficial one.

Although the gap between the two traditions is generally perceived as wide, the fact that in the Romanian Orthodox Church we find groups such as the Lord's Army, with a pronounced evangelical character, shows that there is room for living the faith in different ways, which is encouraging from the perspective of future dialogue with the evangelicals. Still, in order to do this, first, the wounds of the past must be healed and then the two communities must be willing to be honest and open with each other and they must truly desire to learn about each other.

Identifying topics of ecumenical convergence such as the ones discussed above can constitute a platform for future official dialogue. All the theological issues that divide the two traditions must be boldly approached and discussed.

Although ecumenical dialogues can take various forms, such as a dialogue of Christian love or spirituality, a dialogue concentrated on theological matters and so on, due to the way the Orthodox Church is organized as a whole, having a synodal structure, both locally and on a panorthodox level, it is desirable that all these forms of dialogue should be accompanied by an official ecumenical dialogue as well. Having an official dialogue would not only allow a representative of the orthodox community to become more involved in the ecumenical encounters, but it would also make the reception of the results of these encounters easier at the community level. Without such a formal decision to start an official dialogue, the encounters remain casual and contextual, and the reception will be limited to the direct participants.

On a more practical level, the orthodox and the evangelicals can and should cooperate in their missionary work in society. In order to be able to do this, they need to learn more about each other and this can only happen if they receive healthy ecumenical education in the theological schools. Pastors and priests must be encouraged to learn about the differences and similarities between the two Christian communities and they should be open to conversation when the opportunity occurs. Finally, missionary work must be carried out ethically, avoiding proselytism, as well as persecution and intolerance from both sides.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

Anderson, Allan. 2004. *An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Behr, John. 2018. *From Adam to Christ: From Male and Female to Being Human*. The Wheel, no. 13/14. Boston: Spring/Summer, vol. 14. Belu, Dumitru, Isidor Todoran, and Ivan Iorgu. 2011. *Catehism Ortodox*. Cluj-Napoca: Renas,terea.

Biotechnology. 2010. *Special Eurobarometer 73.1*. Brussels: European Union.

Bunaciu, Otniel. 2012. The Nature and the Purpose of the Church in the Evangelical Tradition. In *Building Bridges: Between the Orthodox & Evangelical Traditions*. Edited by Tim Grass, Jenny Rolf, Paul Rolf and Ioan Sauca. Geneva: World Council of Churches.

Clendenin, Daniel B. 2003. *Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader*. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Coman, Viorel. 2019. *Dumitru Staniloae's Trinitarian Ecclesiology: Orthodoxy and the Filioque*. Lanham: Fortress Academic.

Consultations. 2021. Lausanne-Orthodox Initiative. Available online: https://www.loimission.net/ (accessed on 15 January 2021). David, Petru I. 1998. *Sectologie sau Apararea Dreptei Credinte*. Constant,a: Editura Sfintei Arhiepiscopii a Tomisului.


Discrimination in the European Union. 2019. *Special Eurobarometer 493*. Brussels: European Union.


Florut, , Gabriel. 2018. *Justificarea prin credinta in teologia lui Dumitru Staniloaie si Martyn Lloyd Jones*. Oradea: Metanoia.

Gavrilyuk, Paul L. 2015. *Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance. Reprint edition*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gillquist, Peter E. 1989. *Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith*. Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.


Mănăstireanu, Dănut, . 2006. *Locul Scripturii în tradit,ia ortodoxă*. Cluj-Napoca: Alma Mater.


Mărturisirea de credint,ă. 2021. Available online: http://www.cultulpenticostal.ro/despre-noi/ (accessed on 23 January 2021).


Oprean, Daniel G. 2019. *Theology of Participation: A Conversation of Traditions*. Kingstown: Langham Publishing.

Oxbrow, Mark, and Tim Grass, eds. 2015. *The Mission of God: Studies in Orthodox and Evangelical Mission*. Oxford: Regnum Books.


Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1993. *Iisus Hristos sau Restaurarea omului*. Edi¸tia a 2-A. Craiova: Omniscop.

