Philokalia and Eastern Orthodox spirituality

In modern-day Evangelicalism, the issue of contemplative spirituality has come to the fore. People like Thomas Merton, M. Basil Pennington, Thomas Keating (Roman Catholics) and Richard Foster (Evangelical) have turned to the East in their search for spirituality. One possible stop point is that of Eastern Orthodox spirituality, with its idea of centering (contemplative) prayer and spiritual directors. Eastern Orthodox spirituality has a veneer of being Christian since it is practiced in the "Christian East," which for non-discerning Evangelicals means it is an acceptable Christian alternative.

The sourcebook for Eastern Orthodox spirituality is the Philokalia, a collection of writings from theologians and mystics in the East in the Hesychist tradition till the 18th century. Beginning with the Desert Fathers, and also the orthodox Eastern teachers like the Cappodocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus), the evolving Eastern spirituality soon had a center at Mt. Athos, where generations of monks practiced and refined the monastics practices from its Neo-Platonic root.

Just because something has a long history and tradition does not mean that it is right. As heirs of the Reformers, we Protestants hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately, I would have to post this caveat in light of the many Radical biblicists in the modern church: Sola Scriptura is a principle of appeal to authority. It is NOT an appeal to methodology. Many biblicists practice Solo Scriptura, in which there is an appeal to Scripture without the actual need to engage with what it says IN CONTEXT. They think that the mere citation of verses with some surface similarity to their position(s) is sufficient, a method used by the heretic Charles Finney for example to deny doctrine such as total depravity. My latest interaction with biblicists has shown me how terrible the situation is within the corpse of Evangelicalism.

The main issue here is that Eastern spirituality is essentially heretical. It is a Neo-Platonic scheme of ascension towards God. The only difference between that and the Neo-Platonism in Western spirituality is the distinction between God's essence (being) and His energies (works). Deification or theosis, which is the end game for Eastern spirituality, is participation in God's energies not in His essence, thus there is no ontological fusion with God's essence per se, although it is to be questioned how much this distinction holds in practice.

Eastern Orthodoxy has a relatively simple story. Humanity is made after God's image and created good. However, Man chose to sin. This "ancestral sin" however is not original sin and is not transmitted to Adam's posterity as such. The faculty of beholding God is the nous, or the mind's "eye of the soul" [Allyne Smith, Philokalia, The Eastern Christian Spiritual Texts: Selections Annotated and Explained (trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Bishop Kallistos Ware; Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths, 2012), xi], which is darkened by the Fall but otherwise still functional. Salvation in Eastern Orthodoxy is not to avert God's wrath, but rather to behold God through the usage of the spiritual discipline of contemplative prayer, which would bring one to theosis.

The contrast between the Scriptures and Eastern Orthodoxy can be seen as follows:

	Eastern Orthodoxy	Biblical view
Goal of Man	Theosis: Participation in the Divine (p. xiii)	Glorification: Enjoy and worship God in our transformed yet still creaturely bodies
Nature of the Fall	Darkened mind (nous), but only impaired; sickened, not dead (pp. xi, 178)	Radically depraved sinners totally corrupt in all their faculties
Nature of Sin	Sin is only in sinful acts, alien to human nature (pp. 28, 126); moral	Fallen nature of Man; forensic
How to be saved	Grow towards theosis, through spiritual disciplines and contemplative prayer	Justification by grace alone through faith alone
Individual or Corporate	Corporate setting. Spiritual directors required for growth towards theosis (p. 21)	Individual
Nature of salvation	Synergistic (Man needs to cooperate with God) (p. 96)	Monergistic (God alone saves)
How Jesus saves	Invoking Jesus' name in the "Jesus' Prayer" results in Christ burning up the impurity within the nous of the sincere believer practicing the prayer in order to grow towards theosis. (p. 113)	Meriting the righteousness in His life and death on the Cross, so as to die as an expiation and propitiation for the sins of all who repent and have faith in Him as their Savior
Our part in salvation	Believers ought to purify the nous from sin, and keep it from sin in the future (p. 52). Also, imitating the life of Christ in this world is needed (p. 209)	Empty hand of faith, i.e. nothing

Eastern Orthodoxy is fundamentally Pelagian, and it makes little difference if they do not think in those categories. Just like sin is objective meaning sin is sin regardless of what others think about it, Eastern Orthodoxy is Pelagian even though Eastern Orthodoxy do not have the categories for thinking in that manner. In other words, it is Eastern Orthodoxy's fault for misreading the Scriptures so badly they cannot think in forensic categories.

Eastern Orthodox spirituality flows from its anti-biblical teachings. It is a fundamentally Neo-Platonic ascent towards God. The problem is impurity of the mind's eye or nous, which is not much different from the Neo-Platonic problem being that of finitude. Sin is a creaturely problem, and the solution is clothing finitude up with the divine. We see here the rather obvious difference between Eastern Orthodox view of theosis and the biblical view of glorification. In theosis, one participates in something divine, which even using the essence-energies distinction, still has the creature in some sense participating in the Creator. In the biblical view of glorification however, the glorified saint does not ever "participate" in anything divine. Rather, he is made like Christ as the perfect image (ectype) of God. Christlikeness is the eschatological telos which Adam was made for, if Adam had not fallen, he would have progressed to be the perfect image and likeness of God. In glorification, the saint is made into the perfect eschatological image of God. An image however is still an image. We are like Christ in His glorified humanity, but His divine nature is always out of bounds to us. Finitum non capax infiniti; the finite cannot contain the infinite. Even in our glorified state, we are still creatures. It is easy here to see what's wrong with theosis. Even with the qualifications made by the essence-energies distinction, there is still a disturbing idea of participating in the divine, instead of in the image of the divine in Christ's glorified humanity.

The practice of Eastern spirituality arise from their unbiblical view of sin and salvation, and thus cannot be just taken and "contextualized" for Christians. Here are some choice quotes about the nature of prayer:

"The essence of prayer, then, is the mental ascent to God from the heart." -Theophan the Recluse, The Duty Also of Those Living in the World (p. 32)

"Prayer is a great blessing, and it embraces all blessings, for it purifies the heart..." -St. Hesychios the Priest, I,On Watchfulness and Holiness, Sec. 62 (p. 41)

For through unceasing prayer and the study of the divine Scriptures the soul's noetic eyes are opened" -Abba Philemon, II, A Discourse on Abba Philemon (p. 87)

Prayer in Eastern Orthodox spirituality is a human work required for salvation, not a means of grace. The "Jesus Prayer" is normally a single phrase in which the person praying it says "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me" (p. 108) and then repeats it over and over again like a mantra (p. 107). As the chart shows, the Jesus' Prayer basically is their idea of how they can invoke Christ's name for Him to save them, a practice which totally misunderstands the idea of calling upon Jesus' name for salvation in the Scriptures.

Eastern Orthodox spirituality is integral to their unbiblical system of doctrine, and thus the practices cannot be divorced from the underlying theology. Evangelicals who think they can take those practices and use them are playing with fire. There is simply no way one can say that they trust in Christ's work alone for their salvation, and then deny it with these practices which are intended as cooperative work towards one's own salvation. There is little difference between the idea of one's "ascetic efforts in prayer" being "designed to earn merit," and "our cooperation with God in protecting the grace of prayer that God gives to us" (p. 96). Both ways, Man has to do something to be saved, and thus Eastern Orthodox spiritual disciplines are still meritorious. Anyone who borrows from those practices therefore has mocked the death of Christ, and spat on His face, and needs to repent of this grievous sin against God.

Apostasy of a pentecostal church

A Pentecostal church in Singapore, World Revival Prayer Fellowship, had conducted contemplative prayer services this year. I am personally not surprised that churches in Singapore have started to apostatized even from shallow evangelicalism, even as their counterparts in America has been doing, but it is saddening.

The Gospel message is a message about God outside of us (extra nos). It is a Gospel of God for us (pro nobis). The Gospel message is all about Christ doing His work and imputing to us His merit unto justification. Over and against the medieval piety of imitatio Christi (imitation of Christ), the Reformation recovered the truth that we are righteous because God imputes us to be righteous, not because Christ make us just through infusing His life into us. Our righteousness is an alien righteousness (iustitia aliena). We are not actually righteous but Christ died for and justifies the ungodly, not the righteous (Rom. 4:5).

Christians therefore have fellowship with God through our union with Christ, which we have subjectively when Christ imputes to us His righteousness through faith. Our union with Christ is simple and mediated by His Word alone (Heb. 1:1-2), as the Holy Spirit breathes out the very Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), and mediates to us Christ's presence through that Word; the ensarkos logos (en-fleshed Word- Jesus Christ) expressed in the enscripturated logos.

Reversion to contemplative spirituality (which is a Neo-Platonic movement within eastern Christianity starting especially with the Desert Fathers, and not an apostolic practice) is unbiblical on so many fronts. First of all, it undermines the sufficiency of Scripture, which is supposed to make us competent (ἄρτιος ) unto every good work. Secondly, by re-directing people from the Word into mystical experiences, it redirects people away from Christ as Christ has ordained Himself to be revealed only through His Word. Thirdly, by using practices that are not commanded in Scripture, it violates the Regulative Principle of Worship and it is will-worship (c.f. Lev. 10:1-2) that God rejects. Fourthly, by drawing on the elements of sight and sound (or silence), it is a movement towards the type of worship that is seen in the Mosaic Covenant, and it is just as obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Lastly, contemplative mysticism as a Neo-Platonic exercise is all about increasing one's being, of climbing the ladder towards God who has the most being. It violates the Creator-creature distinction, and as an introspective exercise causes one to look into one's soul instead of looking externally to Christ in His Word.

The apostasy of the churches continue. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

What Thomas Keating teaches about the practice of Centering Prayer

Chris Rosebrough recently did an interesting podcast on the topic of Centering Prayer, as focused on the teachings of Thomas Keating, one of the founders of the "revival" of Centering Prayer in "Evangelicalism." Very illuminating indeed.

Review of Michael Horton's book The Gospel-Driven Life

I have just finished a book review of Michael Horton's excellent book, which can be found at my website here. Let's hope it comes to Singapore soon, otherwise all orders can only be done online.

Michael Horton versus Richard Foster on Contemplative Spirituality

In his book The Gospel-Driven Life, Horton addresses how the Gospel in its fullness is materially sufficient for all of life. After addressing the Purpose Driven life paradigm, Horton continues to briefly address the issue of contemplative spirituality, especially as promoted by the Quaker mystic Richard Foster.

Horton starts off by mentioning Foster's disclosure of his "spiritual formation agenda" in "a recent Christianity Today article". In that article, Foster is quoted as lamenting the lack of growth in Christians because "having saved by grace, these people have become paralyzed by it" (p. 146). The suggested solution to such spiritual apathy accordingly is to

... "do all we can to develop the ecclesiola in ecclesia — 'the little church within the church,' " referring to the examples of Lutheran pietism's collegia pietatis, John Wesley's "holy clubs," and the "inner mission" of the Norwegian pietists. As Foster observes, these Protestants movements have their roots in the heritage of Catholic spirituality, identified especially with Francis of Assisi, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Thomas à Kempis. (cited in p. 146)

Horton states however that he is not going to "tackle the question of spiritual discipline [per se]" here in this book. "Rather, it is to interact with the paradigm of sanctification (the Christian life) as chiefly the imitation of Christ" (p. 147).

Horton starts off by commending Foster's worry about the Antinomianism present in the church and the eclipse of the holiness of God therein. Also,

... Foster is right that there is also a kind of "cheap grace" that fulfils the fond dreams of the antinomian who comforts himself with the syllogism: "God likes to forgive, I like to sin: what a great relationship!" Even if we eschew antinomianism, there is a kind of laziness that does not revel equally in the "already" of new life in Christ and the "not yet" of its consummation. (p. 147)

That having being said, Horton tackles the fundamental errors of the "spiritual formation agenda" in its view of the Christian life: namely confusing works and grace, and justification and sanctification (thus committing the same error as Rome).

But I'm [Horton] not sure how directing people to greater concentration on themselves is going to overcome the narcissistic captivity of our times. As Thomas Finer has documented in A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology, the Anabaptists — whose leaders were trained by the Brethren of the Common Life [of which Thomas à Kempis was formative in its development] — were no more interested in the justification of the ungodly than Rome. The whole emphasis was on discipleship, defined as the imitation of Christ.

The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola are of a similar orientation. Ignatius founded the Jesuit order for the express purpose of opposing the Reformation. Through not without occasional praise, Luther saw his experience with the Brethren of the Common Life as encouraging a theology of glory: ascending to God through works and mysticism. Calvin looked upon his schooling at the ascetic Collège de Montaigu as "servile labor" under the burden of severe regulations and no gospel, while Ignatius recalled fondly his time there as a student. (pp. 147-148)

We can notice the contrast that is already in the process of forming. The "spiritual formation agenda" has its roots in Catholic pietistic mysticism with its emphasis on "discipleship" so-called, and is a "theology of glory" being focused with trying to bring themselves up to Christ and God by their own works of piety, instead of the Reformational emphasis on Justification by grace alone through faith alone, apart from works.

Horton continues to differentiate the counterfeit "spiritual disciplines" from the biblical "means of grace" as follows:

It is striking ... that Luther, Calvin, and other reformers — many of whom (like Luther himself) were former monks — did not throw out the baby out with the bathwater. Sharply critical of using monastic rituals to ascend a ladder to God, they nevertheless held private as well as public prayer in the highest possible estimation. Luther thought that the busier he was in a given day, the more he needed to prepare for it through earnest prayer and reading of Scripture. The Puritans not only wrote sermons and doctrinal treatises, but devotional guides, meditations, and books of prayers. ...

The issue is not whether we engage in personal disciplines or habits of meditative prayer and reading of Scripture, but whether we do so in a gospel-driven manner. Is it a technique for personal transformation or is it a saving and sanctifying encounter with the Triune God who has met us in his incarnate Son? Are we working toward our justification or from it? Are we being drawn to look outside of ourselves, to Christ, or are we feeding our natural tendency to focus on ourselves and our inner life? Obviously, if the significance of Jesus Christ lies principally in his offering a moral example, faith in Christ is not absolutely necessary. ... We do not need an incarnate, righteousness fulfilling, curse-bearing, resurrected Savior if salvation comes by imitation. (pp. 148-149. Bold added)

The difference between the sanctification paradigm of Foster and those who promote Contemplative Spirituality (CS) on the one side, and the Reformation paradigm on the other, is that between life and death; light and darkness; Salvation and Damnation. The CS paradigm brings one back under the Law in working for one's salvation, and thus denies the true biblical Gospel which alone saved. Contemplative Spirituality therefore is soul-damning and potentially brings its adherents (and most definitely its recalcitrant proponents) under the anathema of God (Gal. 1:8-9)!

Continuing on:

... Augustinians recognized that defining salvation or the Christian life as the imitation of Christ (imitatio Christi) presupposes a woefully inadequate doctrine of sin and therefore of God's saving grace in Christ.

... the reformers recognized that grace is first and foremost God's favor toward sinners on account of Christ. This "justice" or "righteousness" by which we stand accepted in God's presence is imputed, not infused; declared immediately, not progressively recognized. At the same time, they just as strongly affirmed that God's Word does what it says. Everyone whom God declares to be righteous is also progressively sanctified. (p. 149)

... Nowhere in this lodestar passage [Rom. 7] for the Christian life does Paul direct our attention to the imitation of Christ. He has already painted too dark (realistic) a picture of human depravity to imagine that the devil, the world, and our sinful hearts could meet their match in our deeper commitment to follow Christ's example. ... He calls us not simply to imitate Christ but to be crucified, buried, and raised with him. ... But before he speaks an imperative, he announces the indicative of the gospel: Christ's saving work has accomplished far more than we imagined. (p. 150)

The CS paradigm is based upon a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian view of Man which trivializes the doctrine of the sinfulness of Man, while the biblical paradigm acknowledges the Total Depravity and Sinfulness of Man.

The "imitation of Christ" paradigm of spirituality makes Christ's self-sacrifice and humility an analogy for our discipleship. The "union with Christ" paradigm makes our love and service an analogy of Christ's inimitable accomplishment. Being in Christ is the perpetual source of our becoming like Christ, not vice versa (p. 152)

Apart from the imputation of righteousness, sanctification is simply another religious self-improvement program determined by the powers of this age (the flesh) rather than of the age to come (the Spirit). (p. 153)

The CS paradigm reverses the order of the indicative and the imperative, and therefore is purely of Man, therefore it is repugnant to God.

In conclusion, the entire thrust of Contemplative Spirituality is one of works righteousness. It attempts by its own strength to climb up to God, and thus it is contrary to the Gospel. Contemplative Spirituality is anti-Reformation and anti-God, and thus not to be practised by Christians.

Pastor Bob DeWaay on Donald Whitney and Spiritual Disciplines

Pastor Bob DeWaay has read Donald Whitney's book on Spiritual Disciplines and what he has found alarmed him greatly, resulting in an article detailing his find. After reading it, what it reveals disturbs me too. If in fact Whitney is in a position influencing the New Calvinists, then the New Calvinist movement is in a trajectory towards certain shipwreck. As DeWaay writes:

Thus I am very alarmed about Donald Whitney bringing spiritual disciplines and implied human ability into Reformed theology. If the trend for syncretistic spiritual disciplines and spiritual formation takes over the Reformed versions of evangelical education there will be very few options for young people who want an education grounded in the solas of the Reformation. Scripture alone and grace alone are compromised—if not rejected outright—when spiritual disciplines are adopted.

Mark Driscoll is on the record of practicing "contemplative disciplines", as he mentioned in his Confessions of a Reformission Rev (p. 169). Is there therefore a (so-far underground) current of contemplative spirituality existing in the New Calvinist movement?

In my article on New [Evangelical] Calvinism (now removed), I have mentioned the issue of embracing the material principle of the Reformation without the formal principles of Sola Scriptura. The idea of contemplative spirituality most definitely fall into this category. Will the New Calvinists really follow Scripture and Scripture Alone? The example of Whitney does not seem to show that this is the case.

Spiritual disciplines vs. Means of Grace. This is what we are left to decide upon, as DeWaay shows. Are we willing to follow Scripture and use the means God has given to us for our sanctification and as means to communication with God, or do we desire to be "open source" and bring in other humanistic "disciplines" as long as they do not explicit contradict the Scriptures? Geneva or Rome, Jerusalem or Babylon, let us decide.