At first, from what I was reading of the link Gregory provided, it sounded like this essence-energy distinction was like Aristotle’s hylomorphism of form (that by which a thing is what it is) and matter (that by which a thing exists). But as I read more, like from Wikipedia, it sound more like the distinction between cause and effect. It seems to derive from the same terminology as the Christian compromise on Christology and Trinity, which says that the Father and Son are of one essence (homo-ousia) but different “energies” or activities or manifestations of God. Now that sounds like it is teetering on modalism, and I thought the point was they are different persons but one God. Though perhaps with a little caution modalism is avoided as long as we are clear that each person is wholly God and not a part of God, emanation, or anything like that. This tells me equating “energy” to “effect” doesn’t work either.
The discussion in the journal article attempts to mystify the physical concept of energy and claim that it is poorly defined. Nothing could be more nonsensical since there is nothing more clear and precise than the sort of mathematical definition we have in physics which is also completely measurable. There is nothing mystical about it. Nor is there any mystery in the metaphysical role it plays in science in the place of Aristotle’s concept of “matter,” as that which endures through change. This has the further advantage of transcending the distinction between thing and action – and thus being the substance of all of physicality. It is also rather easy to extend beyond the physical to suppose that physical energy is itself a particular form of some energy-like stuff which we might identify with the pure potentiality of being itself.
While I like the contribution of mysticism to understanding the limitations of logic, I don’t have much use for the woo woo ideas that effectively forbids questioning by attributing things to “mystery.” I have known too many people unsatisfied with having their questions given that sort of answer by clergy.
Then there is the sort of mysticism according to which one seeks to become one with God. In that context I suppose the following explanation from Wikipedia comes into play.
The important points being made are that while God is unknowable in His essence, He can be known (i.e. experienced) in His energies, and such experience changes neither who or what God is nor who or what the one experiencing God is. Just as a plant does not become the sun simply because it soaked up the light and warmth and grew, nor does a person who soaks up the warmth and light of God and spiritually grows ever become God—though such may be called a child of God or “a god.”
Thus the distinction is apparently to say that one can become one with God’s energies but not with God’s essence. Even if you don’t have much use for this sort of mysticism, there is still the Biblical passages where Jesus speaks of both of being one with the Father and also of us becoming one with Him. Obviously the Christian theologians want to make it clear that these are two very different kinds of being one – that Jesus is one with the Father in essence while we can only become one with Jesus in “energy.” My guess is that this is effectively pretty much what I mean when I say we can become one with Jesus in spirit, love, and purpose. Though, the thought that we become one with God in the sense of becoming part of God’s activity in the world is also a nice thought.
The journal article explains that eastern orthodox theology equates essence with nature and that God’s essence is unknowable. Thus we only know God by his “energies” (this is another usage of “energy” where “activities” understanding of it works fairly well). However, I have always been very critical of the idea that God is good and loving by nature and that He cannot be otherwise. That which is good by nature like the sun is an inanimate sort of good and not at all like the moral goodness which is a matter of choice. This effectively turns God into an object, for the essence of person is not what he is by nature but what he chooses for himself. So my approach is quite different, to say that God’s essence in His pure and unalloyed choice of love and goodness is what is fully knowable, better than we can know ourselves because of our complex mixture of good and evil – so better than anyone else we can put our trust completely in Him. But God is infinite by nature and thus unknowable in the sense that getting to know God (particularly in regards to what He has to offer us) will take an eternity for us finite beings.
