Sunday, March 2, 2008

To the Ochlophobist-Part 2

Your remarks on my latest post deserve fuller treatment than I have given them, but I would like to continue swinging away at your original comment.

You say: “For the record, in much of the monastic literature I am familiar with, the very opposite of “strive to make the words and emotions your own” (in a literal sense) is what is taught. We are to read the words, more often than not, as Christ’s words, and we read them as such in order that Christ may be speaking within us, and we seek dispassion and sobriety in the text, perhaps a subtle sadness, but not the riling of emotions.”

I say: What of the following, taken from “What is Prayer?” by Theophan the Recluse in the anthology “The Art of Prayer”?

Psalms and all other oral prayers were not oral at the very beginning. In their origin they were purely spiritual, and only afterwards did they come to be clothed in words and so assumed an oral form. But becoming oral did not deprive them of their spirituality: even now, they are oral only in their outer semblance, but in their power they are spiritual.
It follows from this that if you want to learn from the Apostle’s words about oral prayer, you must act thus: enter into the spirit of the prayers which you hear and read, reproducing them in your heart; and in this way offer them up from your heart to God, as if they had been born in your heart under the grace of the Holy Spirit. Then, and then alone, is the prayer pleasing to God. How can we attain to such prayer? Ponder carefully on the prayers which you have read in your prayer book; feel them deeply, even learn them by heart. And so when you pray you will express that which is already deeply felt in your heart…. (pg.56)

According to blessed Theodoret, the Apostle refers to spiritual rapture when he says, ‘Be filled with the Spirit’(Eph, v.18), and he shows us how to attain this, namely by ‘unceasingly singing praises to God, entering deeply into oneself, and always stimulating thought’. That is to say: by singing with the tongue and heart.
It is not difficult to understand that the most important part of this is not good harmony in the singing, but the content of what is sung. It has the same effect as a speech written with warm feeling, which animates whoever reads it. Feeling, expressed in words, is carried by words into the soul of those who hear or read them. The same can be said of church songs. Psalms, hymns and Church songs are spiritually inspired outbursts of feeling towards God. The Spirit of God filled His elect, and they expressed the plenitude of their feelings in songs. He who sings them as they should be sung enters again into the feelings which the author experienced when he originally wrote them. Being filled by these feelings, he draws near to the state wherein he is able to receive the grace of the Spirit, and to adapt himself to it. The purpose of Church songs is precisely to make the spark of grace that is hidden within us burn brighter and with greater warmth. The spark is given by the sacraments. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual odes are introduced, to fan the spark and transform it into flame. They act on the spark of grace as the wind acts on a spark hidden in firewood.
But let us remember that this effect is conditional on their use being accompanied by purification of the heart…. (pg.57)

He who turns to God and is sanctified by the sacraments, immediately recieves feeling towards God within himself, which from this moment begins to lay the foundation in his heart for the ascent on high. Provided he does not stifle it by something unworthy, this feeling will be kindled into flame, by time, perserverance, and labour. But if he stifles it by something unworthy, although the path of approach and reonciliation to God is not thereby closed to him, this feeling will no longer be given at once and gratis. Before him is the sweat and work of seeking and of gaining it by prayer. But no one is refused. Because all have grace, only one thing is necessary: to give this grace free scope to act. Grace recieves free scope in so far as the ego is crushed and the passions uprooted. The more our heart is purified the more lively becomes our feeling towards God. And when the heart is fully purified, then this feeling of warmth towards God takes fire…. (pg. 58)

I cite all of this not to deny that the Psalms are the words of Christ. At least, I doubt Theophan would deny their Christocentric nature. Also, I’m not trying to say that dispassion is not to be sought. I’m citing this (1) to call into question the idea that we should only be comfortable with one particular emotion in our reading and prayer and (2) to call into question the idea that our emotions are not important or very helpful for leading us to Christ. And finally, (3) I cite all of this to call into question the idea that a heightened emotional state should always be looked upon as a “riling”, and therefore as something to be avoided.

Theophan here makes no mention of a "subtle sadness". He does say that we must purify our hearts, but his ultimate conclusion is that "the more our heart is purified the more lively becomes our feeling towards God." He speaks of a "feeling of warmth" towards God taking fire. He also makes mention of the "plenitude of feelings" and "spiritual rapture". I don't deny that this may be accompanied or even overwhelmingly determined for most of our lives by a feeling of sadness. We sinners have a lot to mourn over. But to pay attention only to this aspect of our feelings is to risk closing ourselves off to more deeply understanding, through our feelings, the whole point of the cross: resurrection!

I do not think it is a gross misreading to paraphrase one of the points of the above passage as: "strive to make the words and emotions [of the Psalms] your own". Theophan says, "enter into the spirit of the prayers which you hear and read, reproducing them in your heart; and in this way offer them up from your heart to God, as if they had been born in your heart under the grace of the Holy Spirit." Theophan, it seems, doesn't agree that we should let the Christocentric nature of the Psalms keep us from praying them feelingly.

For the record: I would be exceedingly suspicious if people at my church suddenly began going into visible fits of "spiritual ecstasy" . In fact, I would probably go through a crisis of faith over it. But Theophan's words are there to remind us that the Orthodox were not always so weak that they couldn't embark on some risky ways of worship. Also, I put this advice into the category of "don't try without adult supervision." The more we put these words into practice, the more important our spiritual advisors become. Also, I am aware this is not the only way of looking at prayer. But it seems to be one way for an Orthodox person to go.

2 comments:

Ochlophobist said...

If I have time I will comment more on this later but meanwhile I will note thus:

With regard to your point (2), it is not "our emotions" prior to becoming among "the elect" that is being talked about in the text you quote. As I read it, we find, in rightly reading/singing the psalms and other texts of the Church that we appropriate the emotions of Christ and the Church. This is a description of recapitulation. It begs the question of what Christ's and the Church's emotions truly are, and I think that what Theophan is after, emotionally speaking, is worlds apart from what late moderns almost always mean when speaking of emotions.

The Wrangler said...

"It has the same effect as a speech written with warm feeling, which animates whoever reads it. Feeling, expressed in words, is carried by words into the soul of those who hear or read them. The same can be said of church songs."

Theophan is at pains here to stress the analogy between the effect of a speech which "animates whoever reads it" and the effect of prayers. The emotions he is talking about, "sanctified emotions" are not, in the first instance, radically different from "secular" emotions. Otherwise, he would have said so (he was relatively modern wasn't he-he died right around the time Freud was born, so make of that what you will) or the translators would have had mercy on us by leaving a long footnote or translating the word differently, or leaving it untranslated. You might be right in saying that he is "worlds apart" from what we usually mean by emotions, but in downplaying the analogy he clearly wishes to draw between redeemed and unredeemed emotions you are foisting something onto the text which I have a hard time agreeing with without hearing some arguments.

By all means, attend to more important business. I won't hold it against you or think you've given up. I'm surprised you're still responding to my annoying comments!