Probably not the best guide to contemplative prayer Timothy Keller
Probably not the best guide to contemplative prayer Timothy Keller
_ Probably not the best guide to contemplative prayer... _Timothy Keller, the popular New York City Presbyterian pastor and author of several bestselling books, is out and about promoting his newest work, called Prayer: Experiencing Awe and Intimacy with God. I haven't read the book, and normally I would applaud a new book by a prominent author encouraging people to pray. But after reading an interview with Keller on MSNBC this morning, I'm nervous about this title. Based on the interview, at least, it seems that Keller has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to Christian contemplative prayer.Here's what he said, and a few thoughts in response.The interviewer asked, "What do you make of the push made by some churches to embrace contemplative prayer, like lectio divina?"His reply:The problem is that with the word "contemplative" and even the term, lectio divina, if I ask five different people to define it, they're going to give me five different definitions, so I can't count on one definition in people's minds. I would say, here's all I know, I think you don't try to get beyond words in order to pray because I think God's personal. I don't believe He's the impersonal ground of all being, so that you get beyond all rational thought in order to have oneness with all of the world. That's a Buddhist eastern concept. It's not the Christian concept because the Christian concept of God is that He's personal, and therefore, you don't get beyond rational thought. You fill your mind with rational thought. Lots of things. Words. Truth. And it should be grounded in the Scripture, if I'm going to hear from God, I want to know where has God spoken to me? He speaks in the Word, so in that sense, don't get beyond the Bible. Contemplative, if that's what that means, then I wouldn't be for it.Sigh.Let's take a closer look at this, sentence by sentence. Keller begins with this disclaimer:The problem is that with the word "contemplative" and even the term, lectio divina, if I ask five different people to define it, they're going to give me five different definitions, so I can't count on one definition in people's minds.And if you ask five different people to define God, you'll get five different definitions. Or if you ask five different people to define love, you'll get five different definitions. I think Keller is starting off with this cop-out as a way of saying, "Look, I don't really know what contemplation is." I bet dollars to doughnuts he was not trained adequately in seminary on the subject of contemplative prayer. That's not his fault, that's an indictment of the entire sweep of post-Reformation theology and how Christianity lost its own contemplative heritage for centuries. But Keller should be courageous and humble enough to admit when he doesn't know something. It would have been so much more graceful if he had just said, "You know, you're asking a question about a type of prayer with roots in the fourth century that just wasn't closely examined in a Protestant seminary in the 1970s, so I must confess I'm really not that knowledgeable about it." But no, he goes on to put his foot in his mouth repeatedly.I would say, here's all I know, I think you don't try to get beyond words in order to pray because I think God's personal.By this logic, is Keller suggesting that you can't have a "personal" relationship with a baby until he or she learns to talk? Or with anyone who is mute? Or with someone lost in dementia? For that matter, my wife and I have a profoundly loving relationship and we often spend hours together in silence. Nonverbal communication really does exist, and it really exists between God and humanity, too. If we insist that the only way to relate to God is by talking to him, then frankly, it's a pretty one-sided relationship.I don't believe He's the impersonal ground of all being, so that you get beyond all rational thought in order to have oneness with all of the world.I have no idea where this idea came from, but it's not from Evagrius, or John Cassian, or Richard of St. Victor, or Guigo the Carthusian, or The Cloud of Unknowing, or John of the Cross, or any of the other great contemplative masters. Christian contemplation has never asserted God is the "impersonal ground of all being." Praying to God in silence is not an assertion about the nature of God, rather, it is a gesture of welcoming and rest in God's loving presence.That's a Buddhist eastern concept.I don't want to put words in Keller's mouth, but now it seems that he is saying "Oh, I don't like contemplation because it reminds me of Buddhism." Probably the single biggest fear among Christians who don't understand contemplation is that it's "Buddhist" or "eastern" or "new age." Meanwhile, every year more and more Christians abandon their faith and explore Buddhism or Vedanta because pastors like Keller are not equipped to introduce their congregation to the Christian practice of contemplation. Every pastor should be able to explain the difference between Christian contemplation and Buddhist meditation, without knocking or misrepresenting our own tradition. And, I should add, just as Christians are not afraid of the Passover seder or of vestigial pagan practices like Christmas trees and holiday mistletoe, maybe Christians need to be a little less afraid of Buddhism anyway. But that's another conversation for another day.It's not the Christian concept because the Christian concept of God is that He's personal, and therefore, you don't get beyond rational thought.Once again: resting in contemplative silence is not a repudiation of the personal nature of God. For Christians, contemplation actually is an affirmation of it, since silent prayer is a seeking of loving intimacy that does not require the limitations of human language. And yes, you can and do get beyond rational thought. There's a word for it in Greek: metanoia, which literally means "beyond the mind." Jesus used it, it's in the Bible, it gets translated as "repentance" which most people misunderstand as just making a cognitive decision for Christ, but the Greek word means something much richer and more existential than that.You fill your mind with rational thought. Lots of things. Words. Truth.Yes, it is the mind's job to generate thought, just like it's the heart's job to beat and the lungs' job to breathe. But when we physically rest, we hope our heartbeat and breathing rate slows down; likewise, when we rest in God through contemplative prayer, we seek a slowing-down of the mind's incessant chatter. Furthermore, the mind doesn't just generate truth - it also generates illusions, anxieties, fears, dreams, and even lies. And the Desert Fathers and Mothers, ancient Christian teachers like Evagrius, understood that the thoughts in the mind can be a source of affliction and a temptation to sin. Learning to rest in the silence that is always there, between and beneath our thoughts, is a way to relate to God beyond words. And pure silence, unlike afflictive thoughts, is never a temptation to sin.And it should be grounded in the Scripture, if I'm going to hear from God, I want to know where has God spoken to me?Well, yes, Christian contemplation should be grounded in scripture, I agree. That's the purpose behind lectio divina, which begins with reading scripture. And throughout the tradition, scripture is commended as the source of "prayer words" - verses to use while entering into contemplative silence. Once again, Keller reveals he doesn't understand the very thing he is so quick to criticize. Christian contemplation is immersed in scripture and rests in silence.He speaks in the Word, so in that sense, don't get beyond the Bible.The fallacy here is the idea that contemplative prayer - the prayer of silent resting and watchfulness - is somehow opposed to the Bible. But that's just not true. I've discussed this elsewhere. For now, just one verse: "For God alone my soul in silence waits." Psalm 62:1.Contemplative, if that's what that means, then I wouldn't be for it.I believe anyone who really takes to time to examine the Christian tradition will recognize that Keller's overly-cerebral and xenophobic concept of contemplation is nothing like what authentic, historical Christian contemplation is.Now this is a book worth reading about contemplation._ Now this is a book worth reading about contemplation. _And I hope that Keller (and others like him) might in the future take the time to learn about Christian contemplation before simply knocking it out of hand. Don't quench the Spirit, as Saint Paul says.If you're reading this blog for the first time and would like to learn more about authentic Christian contemplation, I would recommend either Martin Laird's wonderful Into the Silent Land: A Guide to the Christian Practice of Contemplation or my book Answering the Contemplative Call. These are works grounded in historical Christianity, not modernist misunderstandings.From Carl's blog at Patheos.comhttps://day1.org/articles/5d9b820ef71918cdf2003af0/carl_mccolman_timothy_keller_gets_contemplation_wrong
아마도 사색적 기도에 대한 최고의 가이드는 아닐 것이다... _
인기 있는 뉴욕시 장로교 목사이자 베스트셀러 몇 권의 저자인 티모시 켈러(Timothy Keller)가 나와서 그의 최신작인 기도: 하나님과 친밀감을 경험하는 것에 대해 홍보하고 있다. 나는 그 책을 읽지 않았고, 보통은 사람들에게 기도를 권하는 저명한 작가의 신간 책에 박수를 보낸다. 하지만 오늘 아침 MSNBC에서 켈러와의 인터뷰를 읽고 난 후, 나는 이 제목에 대해 긴장된다. 적어도 인터뷰 내용을 보면 켈러는 기독교 사색기도에 관해서 자신이 무슨 말을 하고 있는지 전혀 모르는 것 같다.
그가 말한 것과 이에 대한 몇 가지 생각이 있다.
인터뷰 진행자는 "일부 교회가 렉시오 디비나와 같은 사색적인 기도를 받아들이도록 강요하는 것에 대해 어떻게 생각하십니까?"
그의 대답은 다음과 같다.
문제는 '대립적'이라는 단어와 심지어 렉시오 디비나라는 용어로, 다섯 사람에게 정의를 내려달라고 하면 다섯 가지 다른 정의를 내게 줄 것이기 때문에 사람들의 마음 속에서는 한 가지 정의에 기대를 걸 수 없다는 것이다. 내가 아는 건 이게 전부야. 기도하기 위해 네가 말로 표현할 수 없을 정도로 노력하지 않는 것 같아. 왜냐하면 난 하느님의 개인적인 생각이기 때문이야. 나는 그가 모든 존재의 비인격적인 근거라고 믿지 않는다. 그래서 모든 세상과 일체감을 가지기 위해 모든 이성적 사고를 뛰어넘도록 말이다. 그것은 불교 동양의 개념이다. 기독교적 개념이 아닌 것은 기독교적 개념인 신의 개념은 그가 개인적이기 때문에 이성적 사고를 벗어나지 못하기 때문이다. 당신은 이성적인 생각으로 당신의 마음을 채운다. 많은 것들. 말. 진실. 그리고 그것은 성경에 근거를 두어야 하는데, 만일 내가 하나님으로부터 소식을 듣게 되려면 하나님이 나에게 어디서 말씀을 하셨는지 알고 싶소. 그는 말씀으로 말하니 그런 의미에서 성경을 벗어나지 말라. 사색적인, 그게 그 뜻이라면 난 찬성하지 않을 거야.
한숨을 쉬다.
문장별로, 이것을 자세히 살펴보자. 켈러는 다음과 같은 부인으로 시작한다.
문제는 '대립적'이라는 단어와 심지어 렉시오 디비나라는 용어로, 다섯 사람에게 정의를 내려달라고 하면 다섯 가지 다른 정의를 내게 줄 것이기 때문에 사람들의 마음 속에서는 한 가지 정의에 기대를 걸 수 없다는 것이다.
그리고 다섯 사람에게 신을 정의하라고 하면 다섯 가지 정의가 나온다. 아니면 다섯 사람에게 사랑을 정의해 달라고 하면 다섯 가지 다른 정의를 얻게 될 것이다. 켈러는 "이봐, 난 사색이 뭔지 잘 모르겠어"라는 말로 이 감시카메라를 먼저 보는 것 같아. 나는 그가 신학교에서 사색적인 기도라는 주제에 대해 제대로 훈련받지 못한 것에 돈을 걸었다. 그것은 그의 잘못이 아니고, 그것은 개혁 이후의 신학 전체를 휩쓴 것과 기독교가 수 세기 동안 어떻게 자신의 사색적 유산을 잃어버렸는지를 고발한 것이다. 그러나 켈러는 뭔가 모를 때 인정할 만큼 용감하고 겸손해야 한다. 만약 그가 방금 "당신도 알다시피, 당신은 1970년대에 개신교 신학교에서 면밀하게 검토되지 않았던 4세기에 뿌리를 둔 기도의 한 종류에 대해 질문을 하고 있으니, 나는 정말 그것에 대해 그렇게 잘 알지 못함을 고백해야 한다."고 말했다면 훨씬 더 우아했을 것이다. 그러나 아니, 그는 계속해서 입에 발을 담그고 있다.
내가 아는 건 이게 전부야. 기도하기 위해 네가 말로 표현할 수 없을 정도로 노력하지 않는 것 같아. 왜냐하면 난 하느님의 개인적인 생각이기 때문이야.
이 논리에 의해 켈러는 아기에게 말하는 법을 배우기 전에는 "개인적인" 관계를 가질 수 없다고 제안하고 있는 것일까? 아니면 벙어리가 된 사람과? 아니면 치매로 죽은 사람하고? 그 일로 아내와 나는 깊이 사랑하는 사이여서 종종 침묵 속에서 몇 시간을 함께 보낸다. 비언어적 의사소통은 정말로 존재하며, 신과 인간 사이에도 존재한다. 우리가 신과 관계를 맺는 유일한 방법은 신과 대화하는 것뿐이라고 주장한다면, 솔직히 말하자면 꽤 일방적인 관계다.
나는 그가 모든 존재의 비인격적인 근거라고 믿지 않는다. 그래서 모든 세상과 일체감을 가지기 위해 모든 이성적 사고를 뛰어넘도록 말이다.
이 생각이 어디서 나왔는지는 모르지만 에바그리오스나 존 카시안, 세인트 리차드에게서 나온 것은 아니다. 빅터, 또는 카르타고인 기고, 또는 알 수 없는 구름, 십자가의 존, 또는 다른 위대한 사색적 거장들. 기독교 사상은 신이 "모든 존재의 비인간적인 땅"이라고 단언한 적이 없다. 침묵 속에서 하나님께 기도하는 것은 하나님의 본성에 대한 주장이 아니라 하나님의 사랑스런 존재 속에서 환영하고 쉬려는 몸짓이다.
그것은 불교 동양의 개념이다.
정태홍목사의 유튜브채널 https://www.youtube.com/user/rptministries
1. 네이버 스마트스토어 https://smartstore.naver.com/rptbook/
독자 의견
댓글이 없습니다.