The charmed cuckooland of hesychasm

Just to recap, I had posted the following:

Several times now, I’ve commented on the danger of theological refinements which outpace revelation. For this admonition, I’ve been branded a heretic by Jonathan Prejean.

If you want a textbook illustration of what I mean, just read the following example, and ask yourself what possible source of knowledge could ground this particular claim.

***QUOTE***

There is no distinction between the divine being and the energies. This is a misunderstanding of the position. God’s “essence” is not being in any sense at all. As Gregory Palamas says, either God is being and we are not or we are being and He is not. We say that God is hyperousios ousios, and hyperousios is no adjective modifying ousios. The scholastics read Dionysius as God standing above all finite being, and hence their being an epistemic and metaphysical continuity between God and finite beings (the analogy of being). When we say God is hyperousios ousios, it means that God’s ‘essence’ “stands above his own being producing cause of all beings, that is, God as the divine energy.” (John D. Jones, Marquette) Furthermore, when we say “God’s essence”, it is only as a reference point as a causal designation. Quoting Jones again, “On this view, despite the grammatical form of hyperousios ousia, ousia is not a noun referring to a divine ‘essence’ characterized as hyperousios in one sense and as ousiopoios (being producing) in another. Rather, hyperousios “indicates” the Godhead as uncoordinated with all and, thus, beyond all names whatsoever; ousia, however, refers to God as manifested…in the divine energy.”–John D. Jones. “Manifesting Beyond-Being Being (hyperousios ousia): The Divine Essenc-Energies Distinction for Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite.” St. Louis Philosophy Department Colloquium. April 15, 2005.

http://www.energeticprocession.com/

***END-QUOTE***

One of the regular players over at that website responded as follows:

***QUOTE***

Comments:
"What possible source of knowledge could ground this particular claim" ?

The manifestation of the uncreated light on Mt. Tabor, as well as the existential experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints who saw the uncreated Logos in his rule (glory). You must be an Arian and a Barlaamite who thinks they saw a created Logos.

Master Photius

***END-QUOTE***

You could hardly hope to find a more unguarded confirmation of my admonition. Like a Russian doll set, “Photius’” answer consists of one question-begging assertion nested within another. Let’s see if we can unscrew all these.

i) Why is he equating a Barlaamite with an Arian? Barlaam was a Roman Catholic monk who converted, for a time, to Orthodoxy before retuning to Rome and becoming Bishop of Hierace. Is “Photius” saying that all Roman Catholics are Arians if they deny hesychasm?

ii) I had asked what possible source of knowledge could ground the distinctive claims of hesychasm. “Photius”gives us two answers:

iii) He refers the reader to the Transfiguration. But notice that this appeal only pushes the question back a step: how does “Photius” know that the light of the Transfiguration was the increate energy of God? What is the exegetical justification for his claim?

iv) He refers the reader to the “existential experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints who saw the uncreated Logos in his rule (glory).”

Notice, once again, that all “Photius” has done is to push the original question back a step: how does he know that the prophets, apostles, and saints had an existential experience of seeing the eternal Logos in his glory?

We know that the Apostles saw Christ, but what did they see? They saw a person who was (and is) the eternal Logos. But did they see his divinity? Was his divinity a visible attribute?

Does the Bible draw that distinction?

For example, many Jews saw the Son of God. But they did not see him as the Son of God. His divine sonship was not a sensible property.

v) As to the prophets, I assume that “Photius” is alluding to the burning bush and other suchlike.

Again, though, this raises the same exegetical questions as before. Did Moses see the hyperousios ousios of God? Was that an observational datum?

vi) As to the saints, I assume that “Photius” is now alluding to a mystical vision of some sort. But that would be a supersensible rather than sensible object.

vii) And how does he know that the saints saw the increate energy of God? How does he know that their inner perception is correspondent with the increate energy of God?

viii) He is also assuming, without benefit of argument, that a mystical encounter is a valid source of theology.

In fact, the mystical model he is dependent upon is not unique to Christianity. It is replicated in Islam (Sufism) and Judaism (Cabbalism).

All three participate in a generic mystical experience which they reinterpret in categories supplied by the Victorian gingerbread factory of Neoplatonic theosophy. There it sloshes around in a syncretistic soup of hermeticism and esoterism.

Let us be crystal clear on what is at stake here. Is our theology a revealed theology, or is it a patois of mantic effusions and Neoplatonic theosophy?

Charges of heresy are being leveled from this quarter against Christians like Svendsen, Engwer, White, and myself.

But if our own theology is grounded in divine revelation whie their theology consists in this make-believe confection of two parts pixie-dust to one part star-dust, then who is the heretic? With all due respect, we might as well get our theology from a vision of Timothy Leary on acid.