The Flame Imperishable: A Short Reflection for the Feast of St Gregory Palamas
Cross-posted at: The Well At The World’s End.
Organ of wisdom, clear trumpet of theology, Gregory of divine speech, we praise thee. As thou dost stand before the Primordial Mind direct our minds to Him that we may cry: Rejoice, O Gregory, herald of grace!
– Kontakion of the Feast of St Gregory Palamas (Nov. 14).
In the notes accompanying the dialogue, Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, Tolkien has the following to say about the mysterious “Flame Imperishable,” mentioned in other sources, especially at the beginning of The Silmarillion:
This appears to be the main, Creative activity of Eru (in some sense distinct from or within Him), by which things could be given a ‘real’ and independent (though derivative and created) existence. This Flame Imperishable is sent out from Eru, to dwell in the heart of the world, and the world then Is, on the same plane as the Ainur, and they can enter into it. But this is not, of course, the same as the re-entry of Eru to defeat Melkor. It refers rather to the mystery of ‘authorship’ by which the author, while remaining ‘outside’ and independent of his work, also ‘indwells’ in it, on its derivative plane, below that of his own being, as the source and guarantee of its being.[1]
It does not take much to change around what is said above to find the Christian meaning behind the text. Eru is God. Melkor is Satan. The Ainur are the angels. But what are we to say about the Flame Imperishable itself? How are we to understand it? As an Eastern, I come to this text with a theological tradition which Tolkien was not entirely familiar with, and yet one which seems too similar to what Tolkien wrote here to ignore: that of hesychasm and its notion of the uncreated energy of God. If used as a hermeneutical lens, it provides a rather clear way for us to appreciate Tolkien’s theological point. More importantly, it will allow for a better way to judge the kind of theological depth which lay behind Tolkien’s life-work. Finally, it will point out that there might be more underlying unity to the mystical theology of the East with Western scholastic thought than might ordinarilly appear to be the case (as Tolkien’s Catholic education was shaped in great part by the Western scholastic tradition).
It is important to note the importance of St Maximus the Confessor in the hesychast tradition, for his exploration on the question of Jesus’ human and divine energies is the dogmatic ground by which hesychasm was able to establish itself as an authentic witness of the Christian faith. And it is clear St Maximus believed that for every nature, there is an equivalent energy which operates; it is by it’s operation that a given nature is manifested to us.[2] For the divinity, that means there is a divine energy. This, the energy of God, must be, like God, uncreated and eternal. The sixth ecumenical council, III Constantinople, confirmed St Maximus’ general thesis, making it more than mere speculation.[3]
St Gregory Palamas must be understood as one who is simply taking this tradition and confirming its theological significance when he says our knowledge of God, and our experience of God, is related to God’s interaction with us. God’s being is manifested to us by his energy, while God is, in essence, transcendent and beyond our comprehension. Our knowledge is true, since it is truly God we experience, but we must not limit God to that which we can understand or experience. “Thus, neither the uncreated goodness, nor the eternal glory, nor the divine life nor the things akin to them are simply the superessential essence of God, for God transcends them all as Cause. But we say He is life, goodness and so forth, and give Him these names, because of the revelatory energies and powers of the Superessential.”[4]
Tolkien’s idea of the Flame Imperishable is amazingly similar to the thought of St Gregory Palamas on the uncreated energy of God. He wanted to explain how God as a creator worked in the world while not being comprehended by it. His understanding of the notion of sub-creation, and the relationship between an author and the work he or she writes, allowed him to see and understand, by analogy, how God must relate to the world. It is doubtful Tolkien had much, if any, direct connection to the thought of Palamas. But it is interesting to note, on this, the Feast of St Gregory Palamas, how Tolkien, reflecting upon God and creation, ended up with a similar theological point. How is this possible unless there is more that unites the Western tradition with the East than is often claimed in theological debates? Obviously, as Hans Urs von Balthasar would point out, there are some issues one might want to address with St Gregory Palamas.[5] How are we to understand what has been said in relation to modern personalism? Do we not experience the very essence of God through his divine persons? Is there not some true communication of the divine essence by the economic Trinity? But this is at best an issue of qualifying the language being used, making sure the tradition does not turn into agnosticism or atheism.
Footnotes
[1] J. R. R. Tolkien, Morgoth’s Ring. Ed. Christopher Tolkien (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993), 345.
[2] See for example his Disputation with Pyrrhus for a rather clear presentation of this fact.
[3] III Constantinople says of Jesus Christ, “But we glorify two natural operations [energies] indivisibly, inconvertibly, unfusedly, inseparably in our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our true God, that is, the divine operation [energy] and the human operation [energy] [...] each nature indivisibly and without confusion willed and performed its own works…” DZ 292.
[4] St Gregory Palamas, The Triads. Trans. Nicholas Gendle (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983), 95.
[5] See, for example, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Logic III: The Spirit of Truth. trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), 128 – 130.
Comments are closed.
This is a quick adaptation of an essay I wrote back in the early 90s, soon after my conversion to the Catholic faith. I wanted to do something for St Gregory Palamas, but I did not have the time to do so. Thus I thought I would share this little piece from a bygone age. I polished it up quite a bit, but it still is within the spirit it was originally written under instead of the way I would go about the discussion today (except at the very end, where I did add a reflection not in the original).
I do enjoy your Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Post.s THi sperson is of interest to me. There has always been a debate raging among Catholics and throdox over Palamas and his concept of Divcine Energies and Essence (which I think the Orthodox now accept) and the view to Aquinas on Divine Simplicity.
It seemed bery important ( and to listen to Orthodox one of the main issues) but a lot of it goes over my head
Thanks Henry. I don’t think I understand what energy means in this context. What is the energy equivalent to human nature? How does energy differ from nature?
JH
I think one of the reasons why it can seem to be over the head of people (and not actually be) is from the fact that most people lack the context in which the discussion is being engaged. There is, to be sure, a cultural-linguistic element involved, but if one begins to grasp the conventions in which Palamas writes in, it becomes more apparent what he means and what he is saying. The difficulty is to figure out the spirit of his words, and not rely upon the letter, since the letter is causing much of the difficulty people have with Palamite thought today.
As a way to engage his context, while a serious study would take much more, for a brief introductory study to his thought, if one has the time and interest, I would recommend: the works of St Maximus in vol. 2 of the Philokalia, the works of St Symeon the New Theologian in vol. 4 of the Philokalia, the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, and then the works of Palamas in vol 4 of the Philokalia. IF one wants a further study, I would include some readings from St Gregory the Theologian, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Basil, and more from Maximus and Symeon. Finally, for an interpreter (who is not perfect, mind you) of Palamas, Meyendorff is always the best start.
My own take on the scholastic/Palamite debates is rather complex. Some scholastics, to be sure, would contradict Palamas, and it is those the Palamites knew about; they were, to be sure, more on the nominalistic side, but because they were “scholastics” they became the means by which the East, for sometime, engaged scholasticism and provided from the Eastern view common reasons as to why scholasticism is in conflict with Palamite thought. This became reified and even accepted in the West, causing the West to accept such statements as well. But, if one went more to Thomas and Bonaventure, I think there is more apparent conflict than there is real conflict. They will have different ways to express the same points, and if one follows the letter, instead of what the letter is trying to say, the difference is there. But if one looks for it more to the fact that the letter of each is pointing to some truth, then the conflict is minimum. There is, to be sure, some conflict, but it is the kind which can be had within orthodoxy, just like Scotists and Thomists can and do disagree.
So, St Gregory Palamas is important, very important even, because he systematizs Eastern spirituality. He does it quite well. But with all systems, be it Thomism or Palamism, the point should be beyond the system and what the system is trying to express, while recognizing the genius and aid of the system if it is not reified.
Zak
There are many answers to your question, but I will try to keep it in the most simple form. Energia in greek means “activity or operation.” Thus the divine nature is not just a nature, but it has its operation, its activity. So the argument goes what we comprehend of God is his works, by his actions, but not his essence.
Thanks