This blog begins with basic concepts, and branches out from there. Some of the posts are a continuation of an earlier post, or may somewhat modify the content of another posting through the introduction of other concepts for which the necessary groundwork is now laid. Consequently, you will comprehend best by starting with the oldest posts; for the convenience of those who have been with me from the beginning, the newest posts are listed first. Feel free, of course, to read in any manner you choose, forward, backward, or sideways!

Monday, May 19, 2008

FALSE MYSTICISM

It has been noted before now that the states above and below normal experience sometimes bear an uncanny resemblance. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between those Saints who have attained noetic vision of the things of God in Theosis, and those conditions which may in some way resemble this, but in reality have nothing to do with it.

First of all, there are those many who may have read of real mystical experience in the Fathers, and know that it transcends the merely rational, but attempt to emulate this in their lives by the suspension of their faculties of discernment, becoming one with the New-Agers in the suspicion of anything at all resembling reason, consequently accepting anything which enters their fancy as the fruit of mystical spirituality. Others actually do attempt to practice the disciplines, but without ascetical rigor or sobriety. The point is, demons lurk on the path of spiritual vision; the unwary cannot but fall into their clutches.

There are also religious traditions which rigorously practice a mystical technology similar to that of Orthodox ascetic practice, but do not take it in the same direction; this is, in fact, true mysticism, but it is not the mysticism of Truth. There are those who attain exalted spiritual vision, but their spirituality is of the World, and is therefore not truly spiritual, but delusional; the Fathers warn that the non-Orthodox should not even try to practice the advanced spiritual disciplines. Those that can't understand this simply don't realize what Orthodox baptism does.

These caveats I consider necessary, having written of Mysticism in the previous post; I wouldn't want anyone to just say "Cool!" and go to it with out caution or instruction. I should also mention that my own experience is negligible; mainly concerning my memory of Baptism. This memory has, however, helped to steer me away from what I consider to be deadly errors in my personal prayer life; at various times, as I was praying, I would fall into an "ecstatic" condition, in which a fire would be lit in my breast, and I would be filled with great, passionate excitements, very emotionally stimulating. What saved me was the memory of the spirit I received at baptism; a very clean, rigorous spirit. The "Passionate Prayer" did not follow upon any special seeking or preparedness for worship, and it wasn't followed by any great freedom from temptation; in fact, it tended to come when I was struggling with sin, and the "passionless flame" of true Orthodox spirituality was receding from me. It made me feel great, and righteous, and that my sin didn't really matter to God; it was, in fact, a variant of the "Good Buddy Jesus" spirituality of my Evangelical upbringing. Anyway, it was recalling the purity of my baptism (which I didn't retain very long) which helped me identify my error.

The knowledge that Truth is beyond knowledge should lead us to humility; if we are humble, we will recognize how weak we truly are, and therefore how vulnerable to the deceits of the Enemy. This realization should make us appropriately cautious, to the point that we barely dare to raise our eyes to Heaven, let alone consider ourselves worthy to attain any exalted degree of spiritual perfection, but rather cry out constantly, "Lord Jesus Christ, O Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner".

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Maxim,
I appreciate your distinctions between mysticism and Orthodox worship. I've thought that mysticism dissolves the created into the Creator, without distinction, and I appreciate how you draw the line between the two so thickly and clearly.

Having grown up as an Evangelical, I can attest to those affective moments of ecstatic prayer. Don't the Fathers have something to say about ekstasis, though? One does, philologically speaking, stand outside one's self, become "eccentric," as it were, in those moments, but I'm not sure if it's the right ecstasy. What's always bothered me about the ecstatic moments of Evangelical/Pentecostal worship is that they are, unlike the coming of the Holy Spirit in Pentecost, rarely followed by mission, witness, and the voices of deniers becoming apostles.

Your words ring true and are an exposition of what I'm trying to say: "a very clean, rigorous spirit." Does this mean we're to move from passion and stop at compassion or move through compassion to dispassion?

Thanks for your time reading this. Keep well.

JCW