The Future of Deification Studies

As the three editors of The Oxford Handbook of Deification, we want immediately to express our gratitude to Modern Theology's editors Jim Fodor and Bill Cavanaugh for welcoming this book symposium on the Handbook. Modern Theology has contributed decisively to discussions of deification over the past quarter of a century, and it is fitting that this journal invited reflection of the highest caliber on the Handbook.1 We are also very grateful to the seven contributors for an extraordinarily rich discussion on deification in these pages. We have learned from the erudition, rigor, and kindness found here, and we are heartened that the work of the Handbook, which shares the labor of forty-six scholars from around the world, is being received in such fruitful ways. Appreciating a growing audience of scholars, we give thanks for a multi-faceted collaboration on deification that is giving birth to Deification Studies, a field that cuts across ecclesial and theological divisions. Our response here will first briefly consider each of the seven excellent review essays, and then we will offer brief anticipations of work that remains to be done. In our response, we do not presume to speak on behalf of the individual authors whose work is being examined. Instead, we continue the dialogue as the volume editors, at times raising additional points of emphasis and questions. The Handbook, although Demetrios Bathrellos kindly says it is “unparalleled in its comprehensiveness,” does not pretend to give a single cohesive argument among its essays; rather, it demonstrates upon a cumulative reading convergence and difference, even disagreement, on the constitutive elements of deification to stimulate further theological inquiry into this mystery of salvation. In anticipation of the future of Deification Studies, we want to ask, “Where do we go from here?” In the fourth gospel, then, the name “child” is not simply honorary, but implies participation in divinity, as well as an identity to be fully developed in the eschaton: “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you” (John 14:20). A similar dynamic in which God's present children by faith progress to future complete participation in the divine life is traced in the epistle: “beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).2 The editors accept Martens's recommendation to broaden the cultural background of the biblical understandings of deification beyond the Greco-Roman world into the Ancient Near East. We also share his hermeneutical concern regarding the types of evidence that could count for the presence or absence of the concept of deification in scripture. In the Introduction, we offered three methodological guidelines: first, the term/concept distinction is especially relevant to deification studies as many texts speak of deification without using the relevant technical terms, such as theosis or theopoiesis; second, we suggested the markers of deification, which are helpful for discerning the presence of the concept of deification in the absence of the technical terms; finally, we offered a definition of deification, which demarcates, as definitions are supposed to do, what deification is and is not. These guidelines informed our work, were shared with the Handbook contributors, and were intended to bring a greater methodological precision to Deification Studies. One point to be observed here is that the criteria for what counts as evidence for the presence or absence of deification should have some chronological flexibility. For example, while the absence of the technical terms for deification in the biblical authors does entail the absence of the concept, the situation should be assessed differently in the theologians of the Christian East who postdate Maximus the Confessor, whose theology accords to deification a structural significance. Constas draws our attention to the tantum–quantum formula, which is used more than thirty times in Maximus's works: “to the degree (τοσοῦτον) that God became man, to that same degree (ὅσον) man becomes God” (195). I would add, however, that a distinction should be drawn between God's incarnation and our deification, for God became man by nature whereas we become gods by grace. Furthermore, he became fully human, whereas we do not become fully divine. Therefore, there can be no strict analogy or correspondence between the incarnation of the Logos and our deification.3 My small contribution by way of celebratory response is simply a reminder that theology is all-determinative. Whether or not we should understand a particular theological position as articulating deification is determined, ultimately, not by empirical markers but by divine revelation: The question is whether or not a particular theology offers a faithful and true rendering of our final end. Some contemporary theologians take the fully developed Orthodox Christian doctrine of deification to be normatively defined by the essence-energies distinction. The advantage of this approach is that it gives greater clarity and distinctiveness to the understanding of deification in Orthodox theology. This approach is of lesser heuristic value for the discussion of pre-Palamite accounts of deification in which the essence-energies distinction does not feature significantly. The examples of such accounts include Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Symeon the New Theologian, and many others.5 Because of the structural difference of Trinitarian doctrine between the Eastern tradition (Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas) and the Western tradition (Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), it is not possible to unify both traditions in a higher synthesis. The two traditions, however, converge in several central points: the ontological and transforming nature of deification by virtue of the uncreated gift; the theocentrism of deification; the Trinitarian order of operation in procuring deification; the special role of the Holy Spirit; and the real union, beyond comprehension, with the Triune God.7 Papanikolaou also wonders about the relationship between the Greek Philokalia compiled and edited by Makarios of Corinth and Nikodimos the Hagiorite, and the Slavonic Dobrotolyubie edited and translated by Paisy Velichkovsky. Andrew Louth accurately describes the Slavonic collection as “more than a select translation of the Philokalia.” While Paisy made some independent editorial decisions, crucially, he retained and translated into Slavonic the original Greek preface, which preface provided a practical rationale for the collection as a guidebook to deification. Fatefully, the deification-centered purpose of the Philokalia was jettisoned in Theophan the Recluse's preface to the Russian edition of Dobrotolyubie, from which several Palamite writings that theorized about deification were also removed. Lossky also used phrases that are clearly pulled from Bulgakov, such as seeing the Incarnation as a “fact of revelation,” the word “antinomy,” the idea of the “kenosis of the Holy Spirit,” none of which are in the patristic literature and all of which are present throughout Bulgakov's writings. What one sees unfolding is a debate about deification between Bulgakov and Lossky: how to theologize about deification. Lossky turns to apophaticism, a theology of person, Dionysius, the Palamite essence-energies distinction as resources, but one could see his weaving together of these elements as a decisively anti-Bulgakovian understanding of deification. Here in the story, not only do we see deification becoming more speculatively front and center in Orthodox theology, but a dramatic twist also enters the story as Orthodox theology will now take shape as a debate on how to express deification theologically and what deification looks like. Fred Sanders wins the prize for the most provocative essay title, “On Not Shirking Deification.” It gives a wordplay on shirk's two meanings: to evade sneakily an obligation and, from Arabic, to commit the sin of detracting from the one God's uniqueness. For Sanders, deification should not be shirked nor commit shirk. We agree. We also appreciate Sanders's generous assessment: “The Handbook succeeds decisively in every way. The contributors are authoritative, their chapters are carefully focused, and the range of topics is encyclopedic.” For Sanders, even what the volume does not cover seems to open doors to invite others to do similar work, and he encourages us to see what is at stake when theologians still disagree over some basic terminological matters in deification: “This definitive handbook does not resolve the issue, because the issue is not one to be resolved and moved on from; it is a permanent fixture of business as usual for deification studies.” Like Sanders, we expect the scope of the term “deification” to remain perpetually contested. If it is primarily historical, then the impetus would be largely descriptive revision: We have recognized that we have told the story of Christian theology inadequately, because we have not recognized the role of deification in the long and diverse history of Christian thought. By centering deification, we can see convergences and overlaps across traditions that had before been invisible. If, on the other hand, the task is primarily theological, then the task might be better described as prescriptive remediation: Certain strains of Christian thought have de-emphasized deification and preferred the language of justification, and these strains have impoverished our shared understanding of the Christian mysteries of salvation. The academic conversation on deification has advanced considerably in the last twenty years, especially as regards its various historical expressions. It has been established as both a biblical and pan-Christian category with an essential theological place in both East and West as regards the creation, salvation, and final end of the human race. The role of the sacraments and liturgy too are usually a natural and constitutive part of the conversation regarding deification, although, as Daniel Keating notes, these views are as diverse as Christian views on the role of sacraments and liturgy writ large.10 The role of the ecclesial body, however, both in its mystical and hierarchical dimensions, we might say, is often left on the fringes of the conversation, perhaps for obvious reasons of the ecumenical difficulties it presents. It is, nevertheless, not on the fringes for either Paul or Augustine. Where do we go from here? We editors want to give anticipations of work to be done in Deification Studies by considering four kinds of goals: methodological, historical, theological, and ecumenical. Any progress in Deification Studies depends, in part, on the aptness of the methodological and hermeneutical tools deployed. In the Introduction, the editors offered four main tools: term/concept distinction, markers of deification, the definition of deification, and taxonomies of deification. In his essay, Martens called for a greater clarity regarding the question of what type of evidence counts as evidence for deification in the biblical period. A similar methodological concern for greater precision is shared by Boersma, Sanders, and Hughes in different ways. While the precise scope of deification is likely to remain essentially contested, there is further work to be done on rendering the talk about deification more coherent and on delimiting what counts as an instance of deification language and what does not. At least in the realm of academic theology, Deification Studies must move the discussion to the point where the sides that accept deification and the sides that reject deification are talking roughly about the same concept and not past each other. As has been repeatedly mentioned, the largest of the Handbook's three parts is dedicated to soundings in the history of Christian theology, with subdivisions for early, medieval, and modern studies of deification. The work on display is breathtaking. But for Deification Studies to have a greater foothold in the academy, scholars still have much to do in individual monographs and comparative studies of figures. The first book on theosis in Gregory of Nazianzus, who coined the term, is just now being prepared for publication.11 Many major theologians in Christian history have been the subject in Deification Studies of only a single monograph or perhaps a few articles. As collaborators, we need to assist one another, including challenging one another, to go deeper into the riches of the Christian tradition and to avoid superficial or erroneous paths. Historical studies can be improved with greater attention to sources, context, comparison, and influence. A number of commonplace stereotypes either need to fall away once and for all, or to be supported through rigorous scholarship as authentic differences. Additionally, as Hughes suggests in his essay, more focused attention should be given to the critics of deification, including Baur, Ritschl, and Harnack. Additionally, the accounts of deification that push the boundary between the Creator and creation—from Evagrius of Pontus to Meister Eckhart to Jacob Boehme to David Bentley Hart—deserve greater attention as well.12 The accounts that push the boundaries of orthodoxy help us not least to understand better the reasons for which those boundaries have been drawn. Considering theology, we suggest that the future of Deification Studies should treat more explicitly the shape of Christian living. This includes the Christian moral life, but it also includes practices of prayer, the liturgy, iconography, Bible study, small groups for discipleship, lectio divina, spiritual reading, veneration of relics, pilgrimages, and so on. Our Handbook's introduction emphasizes that the study of deification's purpose “ultimately consists in its graced practice.” But our volume does not sufficiently cover the wide diversity of concrete practices that have been shaped by the Christian yearning for deification. Our volume's third part is devoted to “Systematic Connections.” As such, it leans toward what the academy today calls systematic, or even constructive, theology. In a sense, the historical as preparatory for the dogmatic follows a nineteenth-century German academic program. Too often, the concrete practices of Christian life have been neglected by theologians, and Deification Studies especially needs to remedy this significant lacuna. What we need is extensive treatments of deification and the Christian life together. Indeed, we have already suggested to Oxford University Press that a sequel to the Handbook—an Oxford Handbook of Deification and Christian Life—is something that we hope to edit a few years from now. At the same time, scholars should take more seriously the anti-deification, false deification, or demonic deification alternatives by which people support lives of sin that hurt themselves and others, sometimes on a massive scale. When people make themselves gods, they refuse the one God and make themselves to be served instead. Also, scholars of Deification Studies can influence a renewal in moral theology by more sharply applying deification to moral topics, such as contemplation and action, the virtues, the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, social justice, marital life, family life, lay apostolates, religious life, clerical life, preaching, penance, fasting, and almsgiving, and so forth. This turn to deification in the academy could supplement and strengthen the rediscovery of virtue, understood as a deifying excellence or power by witnesses in early Christianity, in the modern “virtue ethics” movement since the mid-twentieth century.13 As for ecumenism, we invite all to support another new venture that will take some years to take shape. Paul Gavrilyuk made an exciting announcement in the January 2026 issue of The Thomist.14 Responding to the Handbook symposium of essays by Michael Gorman, J. Warren Smith, Rowan Williams, and Bernhard Blankenhorn, O.P., Gavrilyuk made known that work has begun to formulate the Joint Declaration on Deification (JDD). Gavrilyuk is the founding president of the International Orthodox Theological Association, which now has over 1,500 scholars. Its 2027 megaconference in Poti and Kobuleti, Georgia will have a draft of the Joint Declaration on Deification as a topic for a plenary session, and other conferences are also now being considered. In part inspired by the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between Lutherans and Catholics, the Joint Declaration on Deification will outline several constitutive points with respect to what deification means, with brief commentary on each point. The project will articulate a differentiated consensus, affirming the shared elements of deification, while also recognizing differences in emphasis or even opposition among Christian schools of thought. It is meant to provide grassroots theological assistance for our ecclesial communities so that leaders, preachers, and catechists may bring others closer to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit who deifies. The project for a Joint Declaration on Deification arises from our editorial experience in working with scholars from different ecclesial and theological perspectives not only in the production of the Handbook but also in its receptions, such as in this exchange hosted by Modern Theology. After its draft formulation, the JDD will be available for feedback and revision before a final statement is issued that will be available for signatures and theological commentaries. We pray that this effort for all who call themselves disciples of the Lord Jesus may be blessed by him who prayed to his Father “that they may be one as we are” (John 17:11).