It’s been a very very long time, around 2 years, since this blog has been updated. I’ve done a lot of reading since then. I’m hoping to bring some of that to a resurrection of this blog.
I plan to reread The Life of Columban and the longer Text of Julian of Norwich’s book. Look for it soon. I promise. 🙂
Sorry for the year + hiatis. Unfortunately the quests for money and academic knowledge have interfered with the quest for spiritual knowledge. Look for a wrap-up of the Ps-D stuff this week and a look at the life of St. Columban (c. 504-615) by Jonas of Bobbio (In Monks, Bishops and Pagans: Christian Culture in Gaul and Italy, 500-700. William C. McDermott trans. & ed. Edward Peters ed. & intro. Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn. 1975. pp 75-113) in the coming weeks.
eirene.
The Ecclesiatical Hierarchy begins where The Celestial Hierarchy begins, but in a slightly abbriviated form. The heavenly hierarchy has already been examined, now the author moves on to the hierarchy of the church, or as he calls it “our hiearchy”. “Our Hierarchy,” he says, summarizing material from the previous work, “consists of an inspired, divine, and divinely worked understanding, activity, and perfection.” He then states that he will show this by means of the scriptures (195).
The author then reminds the reader that these things are not to be shown to those unintiated into “the mysteries” (195-196). It is unclear who exactly is inside or outside this group, at least from the contents of the first chapter. The insiders could be those inside the christian community, those who are ordained clergy (deacons, priests, bishops) ordained clergy and ascetics, just the bishops and priests, or some group of “enlightened” members of the community, lay or ordained.
Another possibility (raised in Jaroslav Pelikan’s introduction) is that Pseudo-Dionysius is possibly a member of a sect or movement now deemed heretical. His works were popular with Monophysites and Nestorians and associated with them very soon after the composition of the works, and even into the twentieth century (12-15). If he was a member of a sect or splinter group, the “initiated” could very well be the members of that sect.
At any rate, the author continues to reiterate points made in the previous book. The mind (nous?) of Jesus underlies all hierarchy and draws the celestial beings upward and through our desire for beauty and God’s agency “he pulls together all our many differences. He makes our life, disposition, and activity something one and divine, and he bestows on us the power appropriate to a sacred priesthood” (196).
The activity of the earthly hierarchy is an imitation of the activity of the heavenly hierarchy. When we approach (or participate in?) the activity of the hierarchy in the liturgy, we come closer to the heavenly beings and God, concecrating and perfecting us so that we may be consecrated and perfected . In turn, the hierarch (bishop) is the one who enlightens, perfects and deifies the other members of the hierarchy. He is enlightened directly by God (196-197).
The author the reiterates, through an allusion to a lost or fictious work of his, that the only way for humans to approach the divine is through perceptible symbols. The symbols and stories of scripture are perceptible symbols. But most importently for this book, the hierarchy itself and the work of the hierarchy in worship and the sacraments is itself a symbol lifting us up to God as much as we can (a point Pseudo-Dionysius belabors).
I remember when I started at seminary and took my first grad-level theology class. I volunteered to read a book by Jurgen Moltmann on the Trinity (I forget the title; it was the follow-up to his first, more controversial one). Shocked might be an overstatement, but I was surprised by what he did there, even though it my sound rather silly now.
I grew up (and was being educated) in a “Back to the Blessed Old Bible” Christian tradition. The Bible was the only valid source of theology, or so I thought. But Moltmann used the Trinity in ways I had never thought of. He used it as a source in itself. He used the it to talk about the nature of the church, he used the it to talk about how Christians should relate to the world and to creation.
I was comfortable uses the scriptures to show the Trinity, but I was made uneasy by attempts to move from the doctrine to other areas of theology and ethics. After having some time to think about it, I realized that if the Trinity is based in scripture, then anything based on the Trinity (properly constructed) would be “scriptural” as well.
But what is the relationship between the hierarchy, the liturgy and the Bible, or more broadly speaking, the inspired tradition? Does it matter that the liturgy and hierarchical structure of the church has varied over time and place? If it does, when did the church “get it right”? First century Judea? Sixth century Scotland? At the Council of Trent? Westminster Hall in the seventeenth century? If it doesn’t matter, isn’t that a slippery rock to climb on at the start of our ascent?
I don’t know the answers to those questions. Hopefully as I proceed I can be “enlightened” myself. Next week, chapter two, the rite of “illumination”, a.k.a. baptism.
Our next work up, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, was probably Pseudo-Dionysius’ final complete work, aside from some of the”letters”. It is a companion to his previous book, The Celestial Hierarchy, in which he describes the ranks of angels and treats them allegorically.
The first chapters of The Celestial Hierarchy serve to introduce both works, so I will briefly summarize that material here.
Chapter 1 begins with the overarching theme of both works, procession to God and recession back to God. This was one of the themes of Mystical Theology, but here the theme is given more content. It is “the Light” which proceeds from the Father and lifts us back to the Father. By the context in which the author uses “the Light”, it is clear that the Light= the Word= the Son.
This Light, itself a procession from the Father (=the Source), enlightens intermediaries such as the Bible (read allegorically) and the heavenly and earthly hierarchies. It is through contemplation of these intermediaries that we can, as much as we are able, be raised up by the Light into unity with the Light. But the following should be noted regarding The Light.
“Even though it works itself outward to multiplicity and it proceeds outside itself as befits its generosity [charis?], doing so to lift upward and to unify those beings for which it has a providential responsibility, nevertheless it remains inherently stable and it is forever one with its own unchanging identity” (146).
The word charisis important because it is usually translated as “grace” in the New Testament (116/152 times in the NRSV) and appears mostly in the letters of Paul. There are other possibilities for the word behind “generosity”, but the reader has no way of knowing what the word is without a footnote, or making a field trip to the nearest top-tier theological library to examine a critical edition of the Greek text. To be fair to Lubheid and Rorem, the decision to keep Greek words out of the footnotes may have been a decision made by the publisher or by the series editors. And to his credit, Rorem does a good job noting Biblical quotations and explaining thorny concepts in the texts. Still, a few key terms given in Greek would have been enormously helpful.
All this matters because charis has clear connections to Pauline theology and could go a long way in enabling Ps-D to live down his reputation as being barely Christian and promoting a way of salvation outside of God’s grace.
At any rate chapter two begins with the question of why scripture uses images and allagory when it speaks of divine intelligences (i.e. God and the angels). Pseudo-Dionysius cautions that, “We cannot, as mad people do, profanely visualize these heavenly and godlike intelligences as actually having numerous feet and faces. They are not shaped to resemble the brutishness of oxen or to display the wildness of lions.” Scriptural depictions of heavenly creatures are to be read allegorically, in good Alexandrine fashion (147-148).
The scriptures compare the simple divine things to complex material things because we are unable to have direct access to the divine things, so we need “upliftings” that come natuarally to material beings and are easier for us to understand. Hence the oxen, lions, et al. Second, echoing 1 Corinthians 8.4-7, Matthew 13.10-17, and Luke 8.9-18, knowledge of the divine is not for everybody, so when the scriptures use allegorical language it is to keep that knowledge out of the grasp of those who are not holy (149).
These images do double duty as “positive” and “negative” images. For instance, angels are like lions and oxen in that they are powerful. They are unlike lions and oxen in that they are immaterial, and they are not used to plow fields nor do they eat gazelles. But the positives can be dangerous, especially if one uses exalted language, as one may become deluded into thinking the divine things are truly things like light or reason when in fact they are beyond those things. But ultimately, both positive and negative statements can be useful, as long as one keeps in mind that the realms of the intelligence and the senses are very different (150-151).
Chapter three describes the nature and function of hierarchies. According to the author, a hierarchy is a sacred order, activity and state of understanding that approximates the divine (153). The goal of a hierarchy is to lift beings up to unity (as much as is possible) with God (154). To do anything counter to hierarchy, would, then, be a sort of rebellion against God, the head of the hierarchy. The three-fold work of hierarchy: purification, illumination and perfection are a participation in the work of God.
“By grace and a God-given power, it does things which belong naturally and supernaturally to God, things performed by him transcendently and revealed in the hierarchy for the permitted imitation of God-loving minds” (155).
Sorry for the unintentional hiatus, sisters and brothers. It’s been a busy couple weeks. For more details see Armagideon Time, my other blog.
Currently polishing up my first entry on The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Should have an update or two by the end of the week.
eirene
Mystical Theology is, at its core, an essay on theological and spiritual method. This explains a lot of what may be seen as its shortfalls (it’s 4 pages with extensive footnotes in my edition). There is no developed logos theology, there is no exploration of Christology (the hot topic of the day), there is minimal interaction with scripture and the tradition of the church, there is no discussion of methods of prayer, meditation, or liturgical matters. There is a brief mention of a word that has been translated as “contemplation” in chapter 1 (137), but the author never explains what it means. Affirmation, negation and unknowing are the author’s primary concerns, and all are about how one talks about God, not what one says about God.
The social changes occurring in the U.S. right now in regard to greater acceptance (or at least visibility) of openly homosexual people in the culture at large has led to polarazation in the churches. Dialogue has become shrill and uncompromising from all sides of every issue. Some have become more entrenched and dogmatic in approaching their own doctrinal tradition, some have abandoned their own tradition for the ideology of a political party, some have adopted a hollow, uncritical “anything goes” approach or given up talking to “the other side” all together and focused all their energy on high-stakes denominational politics.
The God of Mystical Theologyis a very scary thing. This is a God that is not gendered, that is not politicized, not known or knowable, not even knowledge itself. This is a God that dwells in a dark cloud of unknowing. We are as able to comprehend this God about less than the earthworm living in the soil underneath my hydrangea could comprehend the internet. My hydrangea itself is able to know quantum physics better than we can know God. It is much easier to relate to a “domesticated transcendence” than the God who dwells in darkness and unknowing. That God cannot be “named and claimed”. That lion is not tame.
Yes, there are many “issues” that are very important. But God is not in our opinions no matter how good they may be. When we realize this we are forced to approach dialogue with meekness and humility. We put aside the high-stakes politics, the polemics, the dogmatism and the ideology. Unknowing may be the only way to move forward on anything and maintain the unity of our churches, or, God willing, restore the visible unity of the church so we can live up to what God has called us to do, proclaim that the Source has begun the reconciliation of the cosmos to itself.
Starting next week, Pseudo-Dionysius’ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy from the same collection.
Chapter 3 of Mystical Theology summarizes and explains the thrust of the author’s previous writings, Theological Representations, The Divine Names and Symbolic Theology. Only one of those, The Divine Names, is still in existence. The editors/translators seem to think the other two may by fictitious.
Real or not, Ps-D describes his prior works as exercises in affirmative theology from the top down, as affirmative theology is descent from the summit to the base of the mountain. His first work Theological Representations examined the “notions most appropriate to affirmative theology” (138). These are high concepts like the divine, the good, oneness, Trinity and the economy (i.e. the workings) of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Spirit are like lights streaming from the “indivisible good” or like sprouts springing up from the source, but remaining indivisible from it and each other. The incarnation is discussed, as well as “other revelations of scripture” (138-139).
The Divine Names is the next stop down the mountain. In it the author describes the conceptual names used to describe God, such as good, life, power, wisdom, etc. (139).
Symbolical Theologydiscusses analogies used of God in the scriptures. By analogies, Pseudo-Dionysius mean when the Bible speaks of God being angry, grieved, engaged in cursing and swearing oaths, and other human sort of behaviors. The author points out that as we go “down” through his previous writings, words become more abundent. I’m not sure I get his point entirely so I’ll just quote him,
“The fact is that the more we take flight upward, the more our words are confined to the ideas we are capable of forming; so that now as we plunge into that darkness which is beyond intellect we shall find ourselves, not simply running short of words but actually speechless and unknowing” (139).
So as we go up, our words and ideas fall, one by one, along the wayside until only the highest ones remain and then none remain.
Having already descended through affirmation, we now ascend through negation. But why must we start from the lowest category when engaging in negation? The author’s answer is that when engaged in affirmation, one must begin with the concepts which are most like that which is beyond affirmation. So when engaged in negation, one must negate what is lest like that which is beyond negation. As he writes on page 140, “Is it not closer to say that God is life and goodness rather than he is air or stone? Is it not more accurate to deny that drunkeness and rage con be attributed to him than to deny that we can apply to him the terms of speech and thought?”.
Chapters 4 and 5 put negative theology into practice from bottom to top. Chapter 4 begins by denying concepts associate with material objects. The Source is not inexistent, lifeless, speechless, mindless. It lacks a material body, shape, form, quality, quantity, weight, location, visibility and tactility. It is not perceived or perceptible, disordered, disturbed or passionate. It does not become dark. It does not change, decay, divide, ebb, flow, or lose anything (141).
Chapter 5 continues with higher concepts. The Source is not soul or mind. It does not have imagination, conviction, speech, understanding, nor is it any of those things. It is not number, order, greatness, smallness, equality, inequality, similarity, dissimilarity, movable, moving or resting. It is not, nor does it have power, light, life, substance, eternity, time, kingship, wisdom, oneness, divinity or goodness. It is not a spirit, as it is commonly understood. It is not sonship, fatherhood, or anything else that is knowable. It is neither non-being or being (141).
The author concludes,
“We make assertions and denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the perfect unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and abosulute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation; it is also beyond every denial” (141).
The 5th or 6th century works written in the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts 17.34) form one of the earliest and most important bodies of Christian mystical writing.
The Mystical Theology is the shortest of his (?) surviving writings (This summary is longer than what it is summarizes). But, according to the introduction, it is a good summary of the author’s thought.
Chapter 1 starts off with a hymn to God as Trinity that moves swiftly into the metaphor and themes that occupy chapter one.
“Trinity!! Higher than any being, any divinity, any goodness!
Guide of Christians, in the wisdom of heaven!
Leads us up beyond unknowing and light
up to the farthest, highest peak of mystic scripture
where the mysteries of God’s Word
lie simple, absolute and unchangeable
in the brilliant darkness of hidden silence (p 135).”
After a brief caution to his reader, “Timothy” (no doubt the author intends this to be read as the biblical Timothy) to avoid presenting this teaching to worldly or idolatrous people, the author gets down to business.
His concern is affirmation and negation. Since God is the Cause of all being, all affirmations (“is” statements) that are made of beings should be made of God. Likewise, all negations (“is not” statements) should also be made of God because God surpasses all being.
He uses the example of the Word of God. It is both vast and minuscule, eloquent and taciturn.
“It has neither word nor act of understanding, since it is on a plane above all this, and it is made manifest only to those who travel through foul and fair, who pass the summit of every holy ascent, who leave behind them every divine light…and who plunge into the darkness where, as scripture proclaims [Exodus 20.21], there dwells the one who is beyond all things (p 136).”
The author then goes on to make an analogy with/spiritual interpretation of Exodus 19-20. Moses submits to purification, hears the trumpets, sees the lights, then ascends the mountain. The sights and sounds are signs God’s presence, but it is not until Moses breaks free of “what sees and can be seen” (p 137) and plunges into darkness that lies beyond what can be sensed that he can be united to God.
This darkness is better known to English readers as “the cloud of unknowing” after the seminal work of English mysticism of that that name by an anonymous 14th century author. According to Pseudo-Dionysius, the only way to God is to leave reason and the senses behind and enter into “unknowing”, which is the only way to reach beyond the mind to the cause of all things.
Chapter 2 expands on these ideas. The author compares denial (i.e. negation) to the carving of a staue out of stone. In order to bring out the image of beauty hidden in the stone, the artist must chip away at the stone until the image is revealed. When all beings, vision and knowledge are denied, the hidden beauty of God is revealed.
Continuing on the theme of negation, the writer states that, not withstanding the fact that God dwells beyond affirmation and negation, negation is more praise-worthy than affirmation. Affirmation is a descent from the most primary things to the last things. Negation, on the other hand, is ascent from the last things to the most primary, which can only be reached through unknowing.
One of the most frequent knocks on Pseudo-Dionysius and other Eastern Christian theology from Origen (3rd century) to the Islamic era is that it is barely even Christian; that it’s Platonic philosophy in Christian garb. Despite having read only a few of the dialogues the influence of Platonism is Pseudo-Dionysius is very apparent to me. Socrates (Plato’s protagonist in the dialogues) constantly makes use of opposites in his and the relationship between negative and positive statements. Pseudo-Dionysius’ account of Moses climbing the mountain leaving behind the impure, climbing past the sights and sounds and into the cloud of darkness reminds me of Plato’s doctrine of the “forms“. If God is the ultimate, unchanging form of all that is than to reach God one would have to “climb” past (or chip away) the imperfect representations of that form, i.e. what can be sensed and the ideas in the mind about that form.
On the other hand, there is a lot of interaction with Christian scripture, doctrine and worship in these first two chapters. Moses is mentioned by name, his ascent(s) up and down Horeb/Sinai and the cloud of darkness itself are taken directly out of Exodus. The footnotes also point out that the author describes Moses in terms that resemble the actions of a priest in Christian worship (apparently following Gregory of Nyssa, p 137 fn 10). He purifies himself, then ascends with his purified servants, through the words of scripture (the words of institution in the Eucharist?), past the lights and sensory objects (candles, insense?) and then transcends them in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The Trinity is praised right from the start, and many of his writings revolve around triads. His book The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is built around a three-fold distinction of monks, deacons and priests (or hierarchs; he seems to have coined the term “hierarchy”). The Celestial Hierarchy breaks down the orders of angels by threes as well. But even in The Mystical Theology there is a threefold distinction between affirmations, negations and unknowing.
The author’s discussion of the affirmations, negations and unknowing and his application of the theory of the forms to Moses’ ascent brought to my mind the current debate in many denominations about what names to use for God. Some progressive churches have started to favor using the formula “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” in place of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”. The new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA, Katherine Jefferts Schori touched off a firestorm when she used the phrase “mother Jesus” in one of her first sermons after being consecrated to that post.
The argument many have used against this sort of “new” language is that God and only God has the right to name God. The names God gave us to use for God are Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus those are the only valid names to use for God. This line of thinking of course ignores many places where people in the scriptures name God, such as Genesis 16.13 where Hagar names God “El-roi”. It also ignores that feminine images are used to describe God throughout the scriptures and that God has been called “mother” by various Christian thinkers through the centuries, such as a likely future subject of this blog, Julian of Norwich.
More to the point, Pseudo-Dionysius claims that God is beyond all words, names and statements about what God is or isn’t, even if God is the source of those names. If God is the Ultimate Form, then all names for God like Father, Son, Spirit, Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, “I AM”, Mother, or El-roi, are merely pointers toward God. They are shadows of the one who dwells beyond all shadows in the darkness at the mountain’s summit, or to use Elijah’s mountain experience, the one who dwells beyond the sound of silence (1 Kings 19.12).
Now, some names for God may be better than others, and some names have greater historical significance than others. But in the end (for Pseudo-Dionysius anyway), God’s names aren’t God, and God lies beyond all names and all attempts to define or undefine. Perhaps our time would be better spent contemplating the One who is beyond naming rather than quarreling about what to name that One.
Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. Colm Luibheid, translator. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist. 1987. 318 pp.
This is my brand spankin’ new blog. It’s going to be pretty different from my other blog and very, very different from the Big Ole Blue Homepage of days of yore and my other anonymous blog which hasn’t been updated since December.
This is going to be a reading and reaction blog. The plan is this. I read a work by a Christian mystic or other spiritual writer and blog about it. No commentary on current events, no essays, no dopey quizzes, no dumb blog of the week.
I’ve been having the most difficulty with trying to fill out my blogroll. Most are ones I’ve cribbed off of A Thinking Reed, the Methodist blogroll (though I’m only through D at the time of writing), chogblog or found through search engines. If anybody has any others they can recommend, please lemme know.
I thought the natural place to start would be at the beginning. So I’m kicking the blog off with a series on The Mystical Theology by Pseudo-Dionysious, translated by Colm Luibheid and Paul Rorem (with other stuff by Rene Roques, Jaroslav Pelikan, Jean LeClerq and Karlfried Froehlich) in the Classics of Western Spirituality series published by Paulist. Thanks to Lee & Abby for getting me the book in the first place!
anagnosis 
Recent Comments