Fr Tom, this was tremendously helpful. Looking forward to future installments. I struggle to wrap my head around the ways in which apophatic theology goes about approaching divine realities. The Scriptures on the surface seem to be more straightforward in declaring propositions about God. But I appreciate that the apophatic tradition can actually lead to a deeper apprehension of the Triune God and thus even deeper doxology. It is good to remember that limited (fallen?) human reason can only get so far in apprehending earthly not to mention heavenly realities. And so a willingness to sit lightly to experiential knowledge and even normal rational thought holds the promise of leading to an even greater encounter with Sophia and a fuller glimpse into the visio beatifica. I’m just not sure how to put that into practice. I’m keen to dive deeper into how the sacraments figure in the apophatic approach, and how that might influence how we both speak of them and celebrate them. Very grateful for your sharing your work in this area.
Fr. Kevin- I am curious, as a layperson, what you mean by "put into practice". Liturgically? As a personal contemplative practice? Something else? This is something I am very interested in myself. -Jack
I will read this later but just one thing. The Parker translation is available through Logos or Verbum (https://verbum.com/product/10309/the-works-of-dionysius-the-areopagite). It's not free, but when you cite it, you get the actual citation from the actual print books, which is useful if you want to use it in an academic setting (like I did in my PhD).
This is exactly what I am looking for! Earlier this year I read through The Divine Names and Mystical Theology as a kind of lectio divina. It has been difficult, however, to find basic, non-scholarly, philosophical commentary on the CD. So, I am along for the ride as far as you are willing to take it.
I have read most of The Lost Way of the Good and have found it illuminating. At once a clear and precise summary of our current disorder as well as pointing to way through it. Though I could have read more commentary about the Kyoto School in this regard. I read them some twenty years ago, though it has been so long I am not certain what I understood. I need to read them again. I am interested in how the Kyoto School can play a part in a Dionysian revival.
Also, I will broach the topic of contemplative practice. Obviously the Cloud author was greatly influenced by Dionysius. As was Meister Eckhart and, I assume, St. John of the Cross. As you well know, there have been attempts to revive such a practice through the likes of Centering Prayer. I find great inspiration in this regard in Martin Laird's books. How do you see this? Is there room for a dialogue with say Tibetan Dzogchen and Soto Zen/Shikintaza?
Alas, I cannot comment on Tibetan Buddhism or say much about Zen and kenosis, though Nishida and Nishitani certainly did. I do make connections with Pure Land Buddhism, though, as you've read in the Lost Way (thank you!). I do think that Platonism can help make Christianity and other religious mutually intelligible, though I would never suppose that this makes them equivalent or reduces them to anything like "the same thing." Can Christians learn something of value from Buddhism? Certainly, just as ancient Christians learnt much of value from pagans. If memory serves, it was St Athanasius, not known for liberal indifferentism, who said that we should take what we can from the likes of Homer or Plato, and leave behind anything incompatible with the teaching of the Church. This seems to me a sensible and patristically informed approach.
Got to add a scripture 1 John 4:15-16, If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
To me this reeks of the god of the philosophers not of the Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to paraphrase Pascal. We are made in the image of God, which means God is much more anthropomorphic and personal than is comfortable for Neoplatonist, Zen and Dzogchen types. We see this unseemly personal anthropomorphism all through the Bible and is a communication of the essence of God. Yes, you can pick out verses here and there to support the platonic apophatic viewpoint, but the personal anthromorphic is paramount and yes, mystery and the unknown is an aspect of God, because he is much more personal, deeper, wiser, and as being the template much more “human” than we are. Does a small infant really grasp and understand completely his parents? But the infant definitely knows his parents. I have a wonderful story of my son immediately knowing his mother’s voice and mine and being comforted right after birth. Jesus tells us to became as little children and like him walk and talk with our Father in heaven. Read the Gospels and Acts and compare it with the above, what the heaven!
There are certainly those who think so, Luther among them. But we are only on the first section of the first chapter of one of Dionysius' works. There is much more! This is just the preface. We will see that the self-expression of God in Christ and the self-emptying of Christ as the core of that expression become key to Dionysius's thought.
We also have to be wary of reducing any one person's thought to their extant writings. He wrote this as part of his life as, it is now widely thought, a monk. What his life and faith were like outside these writings (and even what his theology was like in some writings which now may well be lost to us) is something we cannot know. But it is an effort to communicate the Christian faith in the philosophical idiom of its day.
At any rate, as for the distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, when I read the Gospel of John, in particular, when I read St Paul's words and actions in Acts 17, I do not find such a contradiction as you do. To become as children does not mean to become naive: children are not stupid. They are open and inquiring. Did not Our Lord Himself as a child ask questions of the priests in the Temple?
Ah, Jeff, what may be one man's reeking is another man's sweet, sweet redolence of the garden of wisdom! My normal disclaimer: this difference of opinion has been going on for quite a while now, I know I won't solve it.
One group (typically Orthodox/Catholics) think that philosophy (etc.) is conducive to further understanding of God and not in contradiction to the God of scripture, while another group (typically Protestants) thinks it is. Heck, even within those two broad ways of viewing things there are innumerable and apparently irreconcible differences in how to see things. On and on it goes.
What appeals to me about silent contemplation is that I find I am able to let go of my own view of things, my own ideas, and just rest in God. Let God be God in me. As best as I can tell, it is the only thing that has really worked on this thick skull and hardened heart of mine. I seem (if I do say so myself) calmer, less self-centered, less insistent on being right, etc.--all things I know I have long been unable to do for and to myself. If it's a delusion, it sure is a weird one. Also, I know I have a long, long way to go.
Maybe the type of metaphysical position taken here is unnecessary. Honestly, I sometimes think it is. But I find it interesting and even inspiring.
Regardless, I appreciate that you keep trying to set me straight.
Knowing the love of God in the here and now through the mediation of Jesus. Just being with God. Amen! I suppose some people need the permission of philosophy to go ahead with that and the simple minded personal/anthropomorphic approach is too low class, though the vast majority of people are happy with at lower road and that road seems truer to the ancient writings. You mention Dzogchen and Zen, does Christianity properly done apophatically brings us into that realm? Guess what, guys, our God is beyond personhood too! Smells like an utterly subtle deception. Elde Sophrony has some sharp insights into a Hinduism and Buddhism based on his side trip into them as a young man.
Hello again, Jeff. One thing that I think you may appreciate: I'm in dialogue with Buddhist clergy and philosophers for whom Christianity is defined primarily by North American Protestantism, and while they are polite, they do not find it philosophically convincing. They had never really had the logic of a sacramental metaphysics put to them before, and it is arousing their interest. There's also any number of people who reject Christianity because they think that it doesn't make sense. I think that your objections may make sense for people who are already convinced believers, but the philosophical approach can be helpful in apologetics.
I was convinced out of a Buddhist/Hindu/NewAge viewpoint not by philosophical apologetics but by raw encounter with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth and the fire I read in the New Testament. But I recognize that experiential wind of the Spirit isn’t on tap and “blows where it wishes”. I pray that wind comes your way in your dialogue.
Fr Tom, this was tremendously helpful. Looking forward to future installments. I struggle to wrap my head around the ways in which apophatic theology goes about approaching divine realities. The Scriptures on the surface seem to be more straightforward in declaring propositions about God. But I appreciate that the apophatic tradition can actually lead to a deeper apprehension of the Triune God and thus even deeper doxology. It is good to remember that limited (fallen?) human reason can only get so far in apprehending earthly not to mention heavenly realities. And so a willingness to sit lightly to experiential knowledge and even normal rational thought holds the promise of leading to an even greater encounter with Sophia and a fuller glimpse into the visio beatifica. I’m just not sure how to put that into practice. I’m keen to dive deeper into how the sacraments figure in the apophatic approach, and how that might influence how we both speak of them and celebrate them. Very grateful for your sharing your work in this area.
Fr. Kevin- I am curious, as a layperson, what you mean by "put into practice". Liturgically? As a personal contemplative practice? Something else? This is something I am very interested in myself. -Jack
Yes! Both in terms of the way we do liturgy together and in terms of personal contemplative practice--something I wish very much to be better at.
I will read this later but just one thing. The Parker translation is available through Logos or Verbum (https://verbum.com/product/10309/the-works-of-dionysius-the-areopagite). It's not free, but when you cite it, you get the actual citation from the actual print books, which is useful if you want to use it in an academic setting (like I did in my PhD).
I thought I could read this quickly before a meeting...nope.
I will try again later. Excellent work worthy of my quiet moments.
This is exactly what I am looking for! Earlier this year I read through The Divine Names and Mystical Theology as a kind of lectio divina. It has been difficult, however, to find basic, non-scholarly, philosophical commentary on the CD. So, I am along for the ride as far as you are willing to take it.
I have read most of The Lost Way of the Good and have found it illuminating. At once a clear and precise summary of our current disorder as well as pointing to way through it. Though I could have read more commentary about the Kyoto School in this regard. I read them some twenty years ago, though it has been so long I am not certain what I understood. I need to read them again. I am interested in how the Kyoto School can play a part in a Dionysian revival.
Also, I will broach the topic of contemplative practice. Obviously the Cloud author was greatly influenced by Dionysius. As was Meister Eckhart and, I assume, St. John of the Cross. As you well know, there have been attempts to revive such a practice through the likes of Centering Prayer. I find great inspiration in this regard in Martin Laird's books. How do you see this? Is there room for a dialogue with say Tibetan Dzogchen and Soto Zen/Shikintaza?
Alas, I cannot comment on Tibetan Buddhism or say much about Zen and kenosis, though Nishida and Nishitani certainly did. I do make connections with Pure Land Buddhism, though, as you've read in the Lost Way (thank you!). I do think that Platonism can help make Christianity and other religious mutually intelligible, though I would never suppose that this makes them equivalent or reduces them to anything like "the same thing." Can Christians learn something of value from Buddhism? Certainly, just as ancient Christians learnt much of value from pagans. If memory serves, it was St Athanasius, not known for liberal indifferentism, who said that we should take what we can from the likes of Homer or Plato, and leave behind anything incompatible with the teaching of the Church. This seems to me a sensible and patristically informed approach.
Got to add a scripture 1 John 4:15-16, If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
To me this reeks of the god of the philosophers not of the Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to paraphrase Pascal. We are made in the image of God, which means God is much more anthropomorphic and personal than is comfortable for Neoplatonist, Zen and Dzogchen types. We see this unseemly personal anthropomorphism all through the Bible and is a communication of the essence of God. Yes, you can pick out verses here and there to support the platonic apophatic viewpoint, but the personal anthromorphic is paramount and yes, mystery and the unknown is an aspect of God, because he is much more personal, deeper, wiser, and as being the template much more “human” than we are. Does a small infant really grasp and understand completely his parents? But the infant definitely knows his parents. I have a wonderful story of my son immediately knowing his mother’s voice and mine and being comforted right after birth. Jesus tells us to became as little children and like him walk and talk with our Father in heaven. Read the Gospels and Acts and compare it with the above, what the heaven!
There are certainly those who think so, Luther among them. But we are only on the first section of the first chapter of one of Dionysius' works. There is much more! This is just the preface. We will see that the self-expression of God in Christ and the self-emptying of Christ as the core of that expression become key to Dionysius's thought.
We also have to be wary of reducing any one person's thought to their extant writings. He wrote this as part of his life as, it is now widely thought, a monk. What his life and faith were like outside these writings (and even what his theology was like in some writings which now may well be lost to us) is something we cannot know. But it is an effort to communicate the Christian faith in the philosophical idiom of its day.
At any rate, as for the distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, when I read the Gospel of John, in particular, when I read St Paul's words and actions in Acts 17, I do not find such a contradiction as you do. To become as children does not mean to become naive: children are not stupid. They are open and inquiring. Did not Our Lord Himself as a child ask questions of the priests in the Temple?
Ah, Jeff, what may be one man's reeking is another man's sweet, sweet redolence of the garden of wisdom! My normal disclaimer: this difference of opinion has been going on for quite a while now, I know I won't solve it.
One group (typically Orthodox/Catholics) think that philosophy (etc.) is conducive to further understanding of God and not in contradiction to the God of scripture, while another group (typically Protestants) thinks it is. Heck, even within those two broad ways of viewing things there are innumerable and apparently irreconcible differences in how to see things. On and on it goes.
What appeals to me about silent contemplation is that I find I am able to let go of my own view of things, my own ideas, and just rest in God. Let God be God in me. As best as I can tell, it is the only thing that has really worked on this thick skull and hardened heart of mine. I seem (if I do say so myself) calmer, less self-centered, less insistent on being right, etc.--all things I know I have long been unable to do for and to myself. If it's a delusion, it sure is a weird one. Also, I know I have a long, long way to go.
Maybe the type of metaphysical position taken here is unnecessary. Honestly, I sometimes think it is. But I find it interesting and even inspiring.
Regardless, I appreciate that you keep trying to set me straight.
Knowing the love of God in the here and now through the mediation of Jesus. Just being with God. Amen! I suppose some people need the permission of philosophy to go ahead with that and the simple minded personal/anthropomorphic approach is too low class, though the vast majority of people are happy with at lower road and that road seems truer to the ancient writings. You mention Dzogchen and Zen, does Christianity properly done apophatically brings us into that realm? Guess what, guys, our God is beyond personhood too! Smells like an utterly subtle deception. Elde Sophrony has some sharp insights into a Hinduism and Buddhism based on his side trip into them as a young man.
Hello again, Jeff. One thing that I think you may appreciate: I'm in dialogue with Buddhist clergy and philosophers for whom Christianity is defined primarily by North American Protestantism, and while they are polite, they do not find it philosophically convincing. They had never really had the logic of a sacramental metaphysics put to them before, and it is arousing their interest. There's also any number of people who reject Christianity because they think that it doesn't make sense. I think that your objections may make sense for people who are already convinced believers, but the philosophical approach can be helpful in apologetics.
I was convinced out of a Buddhist/Hindu/NewAge viewpoint not by philosophical apologetics but by raw encounter with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth and the fire I read in the New Testament. But I recognize that experiential wind of the Spirit isn’t on tap and “blows where it wishes”. I pray that wind comes your way in your dialogue.
Thank you for your prayers, and amen to that.