Kneeling with Giants: Part 3 - The Pilgrim

The word "pilgrim" brings one of three things to the average American Christian's mind:

1. The Mayflower and Plymouth separatists with buckles on their black hats and shoes who speak in King James English and cavorting with American Indians.
2. John Wayne
3. John Bunyan's Pilgrim Progress - an extended narrative metaphor of the Christian life

Relatively few people will have read the 19th century Russian work The Way of the Pilgrim which "brought Orthodox spirituality to the West."  The "Jesus Prayer," as described in the book, is an example of the Orthodox practice of "hesychasm" which communicates the idea of "stillness," "rest" and "silence."  The practice of hesychasm finds some of its earliest reference in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers and the Jesus Prayer itself dates back to the writings of Diadochos of Photiki, a fifth century ascetic.

Gary Hansen focuses the third chapter of Kneeling with Giants around this form of prayer, emphasizing the "Jesus Prayer" as described by the Pilgrim.  

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me."¹

He breaks the process of praying the Jesus Prayer into three phases:

Phase 1:  Repetition of the Prayer  (Hansen notes three methods for this repetition)

1. Say the prayer a certain number of times each day as described in The Pilgrim's Tale, tallying the number with beads or the traditional Orthodox prayer rope or "chotki"
2. Pray the prayer for a fixed period of time each day.  (Hansen suggests starting with five minutes and expanding this time as one progresses).
3. Leave notes around the home or office to remind oneself to pray at specific locations/times

Hansen also notes the importance of breathing and rhythm for the prayer.  He suggest breathing in with the words Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and exhaling with the words have mercy on me.  Obviously, this entails saying the prayer mentally as it is enormously difficult to speak while inhaling.  Saying the prayer either audibly or silently is perfectly acceptable.

Phase 2:  Meditate on the Meaning of the Words  (Hansen explains the meaning of each phrase)

1. "Lord" - Here we remember our role with respect to God.  He is our Lord and we are his servants.
2. "Jesus" - The Lord we serve is the humble Jesus who came to love and serve his servants and commend his way to us.
3. "Christ" - Jesus is the "fulfillment of all God's plans for salvation" and the reconciliation of ourselves to God.
4. "Son of God" - We are reminded of the orthodox understanding of Jesus to the Father:  the Word, the eternal Son of the eternal Father, very God of very God.  Approaching him, we approach God. 
5. "Have mercy" - We often distinguish between mercy and grace in the modern church.  But the understanding of "mercy" here is virtually the same as the contemporary understanding of grace:  "someone looks to your needs and helps you out of sheer generosity." 
6. "On me" - We must remember that God loves, provides and cares for each one of us personally.  This draws us to humility and honesty in bringing our needs and brokenness to Him.

Finally, Hansen notes the importance of moving beyond the words to deeper prayer

Phase 3:  Moving from the Intellect to the Heart   

First we recite the prayer, dwelling on the meaning of each word and phrase.  After a time of this, a state of relaxation and focus is reached where we are still praying the words but without concentrating.  At the same time we are able to let our deepest concerns, joys and needs percolate up from our heart while residing in a state of stillness.  Having experienced this myself, it is a bit of a strange feeling to have one's consciousness divided in this way.  I suspect it is something like the "autopilot mode" we all experience when we are thinking deeply while driving and suddenly realize we haven't been paying attention but are now 20 miles past our exit.  Or maybe I'm the only who has experienced that.

Summary:

Pros:  With this form of prayer tracing its way back to the biblical story of the penitent tax collector and back to the Desert Fathers, it naturally resonated with me.  I even researched and made my own traditional Orthodox prayer rope or "chotki" for counting the prayers (similar to a rosary but with knots instead of beads).

My hand-made 33 Knot Chotki

Some would even trace the making of prayer ropes back to Antony the Great as he is described making one in a vision,² although I suspect it goes back to other monastic groups prior to Christianity.  Though I continue to have difficulty staying with the prayer for long, long periods of time, I have found it to keep my prayers back from wandering far and wide and keeping my focus on Christ.  Equally importantly, saying the prayer in conjunction with the breathing has a calming effect on me when I find myself anxious or in tense situations.

Cons:  The only real problem with this prayer is the reaction that some conservative Christians are likely to have to it.    Inevitably in some fundamentalist and semi-fundamentalist protestant circles some people will label it New Age mumbo-jumbo.  My beloved Southern Baptist mother-in-law (who is remarkably patient with her prodigal son-in-law) looked at me a little funny when she observed me weaving/tying the chotki one evening.  But it is critical to remember that this form of prayer originates in the scriptures, asserts the foundational elements of all orthodox Christianity and is centered entirely on Jesus, the center of our faith.  This is at least as scriptural as the vast majority of prayers you will hear in evangelical churches.  There is no "vain repetition" here, because the purpose of the prayer isn't to get God to listen, but to tune our hearts to his.

1.  Many are used to this form of prayer included the words, "a sinner" at the end.  Hansen observes, "That is as far as the most traditional form of the prayer goes." (p. 63).

2. Ward, Benedicta, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers - The Alphabetical Collection, Cistercian Publications (1975), p. 1.

Desert Echoes #6 - I Know Not!

Antony the Great

Some elders once came to Abbot Anthony, and there was with them also Abbot Joseph.  Wishing to test them, Abbot Anthony brought the conversation around to the Holy Scriptures.  And he began from the youngest to ask them the meaning of this or that text.  Each one replied as best he could, but Abbot Anthony said to them:  You have not got it yet.  After them all he asked Abbot Joseph:  What about you?  What do you say this text means?  Abbot Joseph replied:  I know not!  Then Abbot Anthony said:  Truly Abbot Joseph alone has found the way, for he replies that he knows not.
(From The Wisdom of the Desert, by Thomas Merton, saying LXXVIII).





Humility is rare among leadership in the modern American church.  It is rare in the church because it is rare among humanity.  Instead, we oftn talk about truth, morality and God as if we have all the answers and we are reluctant to let any questions linger.

One of the most consistent emphases within Evangelical Christianity is the authority of scripture.  Countless church auditoriums resound each week with declarative statements issued from the pulpit about God, the church, doctrine, morality and countless topics in between, all punctuated with the phrase, "The Bible says..."  While across town, down the block or perhaps just across the street another Christian leader in another pulpit declares a different - and not infrequently opposing - statement based on the same canon of scripture.  Each presenting their positions with ferocity and zeal as if theirs was the only legitimate interpretation.

Some are contentedly oblivious to the many and strikingly varied interpretations of those same scriptures by their forefathers throughout the history of the church.  More difficult still, some know and do not care, assuming that the authority of scripture extends to their own particular interpretations or those of their particular denomination or group.  This is complicated by the fact that evangelical churches (within which tradition I count myself) often have a ponderous blind spot in their study of history and biblical interpretation spanning the 1400 years from the Revelation to the Reformation.  Not a few appear to operate independently of virtually all Christian history prior to the First Great Awakening and the American Revolution.  Though church history doesn't govern our interpretation, surely we must be informed by it.

As Christians, we must affirm the authority of the scriptures.  What exactly that authority means will be different for some groups than for others, but the scriptures remain the foundational documents upon which our faith is based.  Apart from them, Christianity could mean virtually anything and something that can mean anything ultimately means nothing.  However, and this must remembered, the scriptures take on meaning for us through interpretation.  No one ever simply takes scripture "as is."  Without exception, every one of us filters scripture through our experiences, education and intuitions.  We cannot do otherwise.  A man bring his whole body to drink from a well, not just his lips.

Naturally, not all interpretations are equal, but a relative few can claim to be absolutely definitive.  Presently we stand at one junction in a trail of interpretation that spans thousands of years.  We are unwise if we think that the sum of our present dogmas and doctrines (whichever group we belong to) represent the end of the road - that they fully, finally and comprehensively capture the truths of the scriptures.  A simple survey of church history will illustrate how dominant interpretations swing from era to era as the same questions return time and again to be answered differently.  This is not about the fundamental elements of the faith, but rather the shadings of those elements as well as the extrapolations and frameworks built over and above them.

Recognizing this is essential to the humility Antony emphasizes as we approach the scriptures.  Confronted with the revelation of the holy ("wholly other") and infinite God, the only certainty is that - like Moses and Elijah we will catch only a glimpse of Him.  The only proper response is to cry out with helplessness, "I know not!"  That is not to say that we can know nothing about God, but that regardless of what we think we know, He is full of surprises.

As a case study, consider Acts 10.  Peter knew the prohibition in God's Law against eating unclean animals.  He had grown up studying the Law of the Torah and even Jesus had said things like,

...until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Mat 5:18 NAU)

Imagine the confusion when God came in a dream showing Peter unclean animals and saying, "Kill and eat!"  The force of this is lost on modern Christians because of our formal division of Old Testament Law into "ceremonial," "judicial," and "moral" categories (a la Thomas Aquinas).  Though the OT prophets spoke in hyperbole about the distinction between empty versus genuine offerings and sacrifices, (compare and contrast: Isa 1:13, Isa 66:3, Isa 56:6-7), our formal distinction didn't exist within Jewish communities until around the 9th century AD/CE and it appears to have been adopted from Christian influences.¹  Generally speaking, first-century Jews like Peter would have understood the Law to be binding in both ceremony and morality with the additionall qualification of a sincere heart (see Psa 51:16-19).

So to Peter, God's command in Acts 10:13 would have been not only confusing but appallingly, nauseatingly immoral (see Isa 66:14-17, set in the context of messianic prophecy) as evidenced by his response:  "No Way, Lord!  I have never eaten anything unholy or unclean!"  We are told in Acts 10:17 that Peter was "utterly at a loss" at what God was telling him.  He knew not!  But he was willing to hold his knowledge and understanding with humility in the face of what God was obviously doing in the hearts of the gentiles.  He was willing to accept that he didn't know or understand everything even though he had been in the very presence of Christ.  Peter was willing to let God be God even when God didn't do things according to his script.  Are we?


1.  The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.