An Apophatic Ascent to the Divine

I would like to draw readers’ attention to an excellent article, entitled ‘An Apophatic Ascent to the Divine: Apophatic Theology as a Philosophically Satisfying Way to Conceive the Nature of God’ by Erik Sorem of the Azusa Pacific University. The full article can be read at Academia.edu Weekly Digest, but Dr. Sorem has kindly agreed to allow Pemptousia to present a condensed version, which, naturally, does not do justice to the full text [W.J.L].

Dr. Sorem begins by stating that the purpose of his paper is ‘to examine the use of apophaticism as a philosophically satisfying way to approach conceiving the nature of God’. What he means by ‘philosophically satisfying’ is that ‘certain conditions must be met (i.e. satisfied) in order for the science of human reasoning (philosophy) to function as a science, that is, legitimately acquire genuine knowledge’. He argues, and most cogently, it seems to me, that ‘it is indeed philosophically satisfying to see human reason, not as autonomous, but grounded and completed by something “Other”, which we find to be God’. He maintains that ‘the Christian Faith is an ontological relationship between man and God that serves as a necessary condition for knowledge, which also includes knowing what God reveals of Himself to us both in nature and in the act of humble devotion and prayer’.

In the first section of the paper, on The Nature of Language, Dr. Sorem points out that human language is entirely inadequate in terms of designating features of the transcendent God. He quotes Clement the Alexandrian as saying ‘that human language is incapable of expressing anything essential about God’, and John the Damascan as declaring  that ‘it is clear that God exists, but what He is in essence and nature is beyond all understanding’. How are we to deal with this conundrum? Dr. Sorem explains that ‘The Fathers, understanding that human thought and language are both inadequate and incapable of grasping the reality of God, use apophatic language to talk about God who is utterly transcendent. Apophatic language is language that talks about something by virtue of what it is not’.

The next section deals with The Nature of Knowledge. Dr. Sorem points out ‘wisdom involves knowledge; however, the converse does not hold true. Not all forms of knowledge are considered to be wisdom’ [One may be ‘better informed’, but ‘none the wiser’, my parenthesis]. He argues that the subject matter of philosophy is all things, including God, and that this makes it a kind of wisdom in the Biblical sense (‘In all your ways know wisdom.’ Prov. 3:6; and, ‘wisdom is better than precious stones.’ Prov. 8:11). He makes the point, however, that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge, not merely by our intellectual powers, but by others which are attributable exclusively to the divine. For the purposes of this paper, however, he restricts the term ‘philosophy’ to discursive reasoning and identifies it with ‘the human being’s ability to know the reality strictly through the powers of reason and intellect, unaided by any divine actions’. He asks the very pertinent question: ‘within the sphere of human reason alone, can we ever determine whether knowledge exists?’

The third section deals with The Nature of Faith. Dr. Sorem makes it clear that what he means by faith is ‘the Christian faith…, a faith uniquely distinct from what is articulated in other religions’. He also points out the important distinction between ‘faith’ and ‘belief’, since ‘faith’ is the reality of things hoped for. Moreover, there is no conflict between faith and reason, since they are directly linked, as Saint Paul makes clear in his epistle to the Hebrews (faith is ‘the evidence of things not yet seen’). However, the ‘sense of faith, as something not only distinct from reason but actually incompatible and contrary to reason, manifests itself with “the new atheists” and other individuals hostile to theism and Christianity today’. For the Orthodox, however, faith ‘is a way of being, a way of existing in communion with God that restores the nature of man in the deepest sense’.

Dr. Sorem makes the very important point that, the further reason drives itself, the closer it comes to the realization that it bears a relation to faith. Indeed, ‘Faith is the foundation of reason and rational thinking’. It is also the case that ‘reason recognizes its own limits’. It is the author’s contention that it is through the Church’s apophatic theology that ‘one is led to a true knowledge of God’. The apophatic formulations offered by the Fathers acknowledge the impossibility of any concept of God. ‘If God were a concept, He would remain within the realm of what is thinkable. However, what is greater than can be thought, cannot be thought’. As Saint Gregory Palamas states: ‘God is not only beyond knowledge, but also beyond unknowing. His revelation itself is also truly a mystery of a most divine and an extraordinary kind, since the divine manifestations, even if symbolic, remain unknowable by reason of their transcendence’.

Cataphatic theology has its roots in God’s manifestations and words as these are presented in the Bible. Without  it we would not have any sort of positive relationship with God at all. We must bear in mind, however, that, while God is in the manifestation or words, these are not Him. We can learn about God from cataphatic theology, but the Fathers warn us against believing that these ‘energies’ are actually His essence, which is totally inaccessible. Even any discussion of His ‘energies’ is fraught with problems, since we are, again, at the mercy of human language and thinking, which cannot properly be applied to God.

Apophatic theology necessarily expresses its formulations in negative terms in an attempt to convey the fact that God is not merely the greatest possible Being, but is greater than it is possible for us to conceive. Even to say that He is ineffable is too positive.

Are we then condemned to be forever looking at the works and words of God, praising Him for them, grateful for them, but as spectators rather than participants in a relationship with Him? Dr. Sorem thinks not. He believes that the Christian faith can supply what reason cannot accomplish. Reason cannot be used to show the validity of reason, since this is obviously begging the question (of what reason is grounded upon). The human mind requires an outside source which will ‘independently’ confirm what would otherwise be mere speculation. As the author says: ‘The Lord God who is omniscient and not contingent upon anything is the one who clearly is in a position to know’. And, as he points out, Saint John declares that Christ is life and the light which illumines us (Jn. 1,4). Christ is, indeed, the epitome of divine revelation and the means whereby we can come to know God. The ‘crown of knowledge’ will never be attained by reason, but is the gift of faith from the Creator to  His creation.

Dr. Sorem’s conclusion is that, provided reason humbles itself and recognizes that it has to be located in faith, this provides a philosophically satisfying way of conceiving the nature of God. Apophasis is humility; it is the intellect reminding itself that it is in no position to reason its way to knowledge of God and that it needs faith to help it approach Him. If people humble themselves in this way, God will exalt them to understand what their minds cannot. Dr. Sorem makes the  point that this ‘is the true theology that the Fathers speak about, a study of God that brings the human being into an intimate relationship with the hidden God through Jesus Christ… For the Orthodox Christian this is the process of theosis. Hence, apophatic theology becomes a way of being. Apophasis leads to a type of knowledge that transforms the person into a new being where the image of Christ is impressed upon the believer’. East and West agree on this. Clement said, ‘I believe so that I can understand’; and Anselm declared, ‘For I believe this also, that unless I believe I shall not understand’.