Theosis and Human Flourishing: A pastoral insight.

Introduction.

The term “theosis” may not sound familiar at present to the ears of many church

leaders and congregants. The same must be true for the phrase “human flourishing,” despite

they are indirectly brought up by preachers sporadically. The reason for this might be the

fear of sounding heretical for the former and sceptic for the latter. Nevertherless, the theme

of theosis has gained importance in the academy. Scholar Ron Cole-Turner attests that, “in

recent decades, various Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians have turned their

attention to the meaning of theosis or deification.”1 Both themes, theosis and human

flourishing, have their advocates and their contenders. In this brief paper I will try neither

defend nor contradict, but keep a balance between the two. It has always been my

conviction that leaning to either end of the scale is dangerous. Nonetheless, keeping a

balance is as well risky. First, I will lean on some renowned scholars to apprehend from

their perspective what “theosis” mean and how it can be used to improve the believers’

lives. Second, a review of what transhumanists posit to enhance human life and how it

compares to theosis, if feasible. Finally, I will intent to posit some brief recommendations

for pastoral use.

What is theosis?

Most scholars concur that the term “theosis,” like the word “trinity”, is not in the

Bible. However, this term can be found implicit in some texts in the Old Testament and The

New Testament. Two of the most quoted texts are Psalm 82:6 and John 10:33-36 among

1
Ron Cole-Turner (2018) Theosis and Human Enhancement, Theology and Science, 330-
342.
1
others. In the Christian theology, “theosis” refers to the transformation of a believer in

God’s likeness. However, this likeness is in relation to the incarnate Son of God. The

closest equivalent term for “theosis” is either “divinization or deification.” According to

scholar Eugenia Torrance, the term “theosis” implies that humans are in some sense made

gods, which in turn implies a transformation out of themselves. 2Scholar Ron Cole-Turner

avers that, “in the writings of Athanasius, the key to theosis is the incarnation, which

transforms humanity.” In consonance with this, Turner adds that this stance in Athanasius

and later in Gregory of Nyssa entails the unity of humanity and not the individual goal of

only a few chosen for this purpose. The word transformation μεταμορφόω in Romans 12:2

in Greek implies a change of the mind. One can also use metamorphosis to refer to a

change of character. All this is possible provided Jesus’ incarnation is believed as a true act

of God for transformation, which for some may entail salvation by justification. However,

it is hard to pretend the transformation of humanity in one single act of God. It is worth to

note here that the first step for this divine purpose was taken by God the creator in the

incarnation, the logos becoming flesh. Cole-Turner argues that, “in union with humanity, it

is not that the Logos is exalted, but the human body is.”3 This is important because it

bolsters the meaning of theosis. Furthermore, it is this act of God that shows God’s good

will for humanity.

According to Irenaeus, as quoted by Cole-Turner, “our Lord Jesus Christ became

what we are that He might bring us to be even what He is himself.”4 In words of the

apostle, “For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich,

2
Torrance, Eugenia. Acquiring Incorruption: Maximiam Theosis and Scientific
Transhumanism in Studies in Christian Ethics 2019, Vol. 32(2) 177–186.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
2
yet for your sakes he became poor so that by his poverty you might become rich.” 2 Cor.

8:9 (NRSV). Although many have interpreted this text to talk about prosperity, the

implication here is, once again, the incarnation: he (Christ) became flesh so flesh might

become divine (gods). Furthermore, this divinization of humanity is to be manifested even

in the “corrupted” flesh. Paul understanding this was possible did not hesitate to claim,

“Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” Rom. 7:24

(NRSV). One can argue that the response for this inquiry may entail theosis. Not that the

flesh be transformed in the wink of an eye, but the transformation of the mind and character

in the participation of creation.

In the early Church the connotation of theosis very likely caused the same reaction

as it did when Jesus claimed to be himself the Son of God. Irenaeus’ formula must have

likewise caused some nuisance in his time. I think it still does in some traditional churches.

The reason, I think, has to do, in part, with the concept of perfection. Most people have this

idea of a non-fallible God. This comes from Mathew 5:48 that says, “be perfect, therefore,

as your heavenly Father is perfect,” (NRSV). For many “to be perfect” is impossible to

achieve. At least in this corruptible body. The common concept that people have is: nobody

is perfect; nobody can be perfect. Only God is perfect. Should this be so, “theosis,” would

make no sense. How can a wicked man become god in his flesh? To answer this, scholar

Cole-Turner offers us a clear explication of this term, “τέλειος,” when he affirms that the

translation “perfect” has the unfortunate consequence of suggesting the absurd notion that

we are being commanded to be free of all imperfections or failures, an idea based on the

modern, latin-based notion of perfectus or “defect-free.”5 The original is probably best

translated as “mature.” In this vein, Tracy J. Trothen avers that,

3
 [F]rom a religious perspective, perfection is also striven for but is
understood differently. Tirosh-Samuelson describes perfection on earth,
from a Jewish perspective, as attained through good works to others.
Similarly, in some sense Labrecque and Wolyniak see Christian notions of
perfection as partial restoration to the prelapsarian state, the Garden of Eden
before the introduction of sin. This is perhaps akin to the concept of the
eschatological proviso: through God’s grace and human justice work, it is
possible and important to edge toward the realization of God’s harmonious
and Edenic promise, but humanity cannot fully realize that estate in this
world.6
With this in mind, it is clear that divinization implies maturity rather than

infallibility. Maturity in my opinion entails cooperation and dependence in God. No best

exemplar other than the incarnate Son of God. While in the flesh, Jesus said: “My Father is

still working, and I also am working.” John 5:17 (NRSV). Likewise, he manifested

dependence: “for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself

given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak.” John 12:49 (NRSV). It is

inacceptable to be called children of the Most High and be idle, expecting from the Father

all the goodies, and not yielding the fruits of justice, compassion, and love for other(s). If

dependence in God were not important, prayer would be just a Christian fad. Jesus would

have neither prayed nor taught his disciples how to pray. But the story renders different.

John 17, Jesus prays for the unity of the believers (humanity). Furthermore, prayer is the

language of cooperation and dependence, I opine.

In addition to using the language of prayer there are actions to be taken. I find vital

the insight about what theosis is posited by Cole-Turner: kenosis, communal, and cosmic.

He claims that, “if theosis makes us like God, then it must make us kenotic, for this is the

God of Jesus Christ. Second, theosis does not isolate the individual but builds up the

6
Trothen, J. Tracy. Transhumanism and Religion: Glimpsing the Future of Human Enhancement in Religion
and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement. Edited by Mercer, Calvin and Tracy J.
Trothen. Santa Barbara, Ca.(ABC-CLIO,LLC, 2015), 396.

4
community. Third, the scope of its purpose is exhausted not in individual transformation or

even in the transformation of all humanity, but only in the transfiguration of the cosmos.”7

Human Flourishing

Many are the forms proposed by transhumanists in regards to human enhancement.

As Hava Tirosh-Samuelson purports, “technology is transforming human life at a faster

pace than ever before.”8 The transformation promised by science and technology may go

from the increase of our life-span to emotional enhancement. According to Stephen

Gardner, “transhumanism asserts that through the use of applied reason, values - such as

rational thinking, freedom, tolerance, and concern for others - can be enhanced, leading to

an ever-improving world and superior human condition. In this way, transhumanism claims

to offer hope for a better world.”9 In line with theosis it can be observed there is a

connection with enhancement that demands transformation. This transformation can relate

to the act of creation. From Genesis to Revelation there is evidence of God working in his

creation. As stated in John 5:17, “My Father is still working, and I am also working.” Both

look towards better future for humanity in a transformative pattern. As Michael Austin

avers that in broad terms the New Testament presents theosis as a progressively

transformational union with Christ. For example, 2 Cor. 5:17 declares “So if anyone is in

Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become

new!”

7
Ron Cole-Turner (2018) Theosis and Human Enhancement, Theology and Science, 16:3, 330-342.
8
Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava and Kenneth L. Mossman. New Perspectives on Transhumanism: In Building Better
Humans? Frankfurt, Germany. (Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag de Wissenschaften, 2005), 29.
9
Garner, Stephen. Christian Theology and Transhumanism: The “Created Co-Creator” and Bioethical
Principles. Edited by Mercer Calvin and Tracy J. Trothen. Santa Barbara, Co. (ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2015), 229.

5
 According to Michael Burdett and Victoria Lorrimar, “from a religious standpoint,

defining human flourishing involves the notions of creaturehood and deification.” 10 The

former entails dependency on God and on other creatures. This resonates with the

manifestation of theosis in community as posited by Cole-Turner elsewhere. The latter

confirms that human beings enjoy adoption in Christ to share and participate in

transformation and elevation (theosis) to intimate life with God. In this vein, Grant

MacCaskill avers that to be a creature is to be an object of God’s creative and providential

activity. In other words, God never abandons neither creation nor creatures. God’s

providential activity is now mediated by the Incarnate One in whom the process of

deification is carried on in the work of the Holy Spirit the other comforter. What’s more,

God involves creatures in the progress (flourishing) of its creation. Moreover, for both

Maximos and Federov, human beings could freely and meaningfully participate in the

divine work of redemption; for both philosophers, the ultimate end of salvation was

deification (theosis), avers Eugene Clay.11

Conclusion

Like Christianity, transhumanism seeks to make human life better heuristically. One

through the revelation of the Incarnate God and the other through the use of technology.

Despite they differ in methodology to achieve common goals, efforts are being made to get

the best out of each. It is not a secret that transhumanists generally reject the idea of divine

intervention and revelation showed some surveys carried out by the World Transhumanist

10
Burdett, Michael and Victoria Lorrimar. Creatures Bound for Glory: Biotechnical Enchancement and Visions
of Human Flourishing. Journal Studies in Christian Ethics Vol. (2019), 32(2) 241-253.
11
Clay, Eugene. Transhumanism and the Orthodox Christian Tradition in Building Better Humans? Edited by
Tirosh-Samelson Hava and Kenneth L. Mossman. Frankfurt, Germany. (Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag der
Wissenschaften, 2005), 158.

6
Association (Hughes 2007). Despite the rejection of the transhumanist, some scholars agree

that this movement, allegedly had its origin in Christianism, or so it seems.

I think humanity can benefit from both Christianity and Transhumanism despite

their different approaches for enhancement. It is not a matter of either playing God or

seizing God’s deity since this would rather be self-deceit. Instead of struggling with either

of these stances, it might be best to assume what MacCaskill has to say, “the existence of

creation, in all of its past and all of its future, always rests on God’s giving of himself into

it, something now identified with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, or to use Col-Turner’s

words, the kenosis or the old self emptying. MacCaskill pushes forward, affirming that God

not only makes himself present with the creation, but also addresses the problem by which

we are alienated from that presence, the sin that turns us inwards, away from the

community of creation in fellowship with God, and that distorts our capacity to know right

from wrong, which in accordance to the serpent would make Adam and Eve like God.