by Dan
Burke. July, 2013
Question: Dear
Dan, I enjoy reading more modern writers about prayer and the spiritual life
but I am always worried about false teachings that could lead me away from the
heart of the Church. How can I know when an author is not orthodox or teaches
something that could lead me to deception instead of to God?
Answer: You are
wise to be concerned about finding the pure teaching of God on the matter of
prayer. If the enemy can confuse us about the manner in which we communicate
with our Lord, he can do much damage to our faith. Unfortunately, it seems that
for every one good book on the topic of prayer, there are ten that contain
various kinds of psuedo-mysticism that sound good and can yield positive
temporal outcomes, but lack authentic mystical tradition.
I will
attempt here to provide a summary of the most common problems with modern
teachings on prayer so that you can effectively navigate past the empty
teachings of the world and toward the truth of God.
Lost
Without Distinctions
With
respect to trusting particular modern authors, the first and most common red
flag is that they ignore the distinctions provided by the Church between the
different kinds of prayer.
. Whether done out of arrogance, ignorance or
sloppiness, this disregard is a signal that the author is not at all concerned
with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the thousands of years of spiritual
wisdom in the Church. These are writers to avoid.
The Church
outlines three distinct forms of prayer in the Catechism (part four, chapter
three), each with their own definition and related teachings. These are: vocal
prayer, meditation and contemplation. Often meditation and contemplation are
incorrectly presented as the same thing, though they are not synonymous. When
authors do this, any differences between these two distinct forms are ignored
or explained away — an approach that is a sure path to confusion and a clear
sign that you have uncovered unreliable teaching.
“Prayer”
Methods Rooted in Spiritual Naturalism
The second
danger sign is a perspective that is rooted in a form of spiritual naturalism.
This orientation is the outgrowth of well-intended persons using purely human
means (e.g. psychology or non-Christian meditation techniques) to overcome
common challenges in prayer. The confusing twist here is that these ideas are
usually wrapped in spiritual terms in a way that often masks their purely human
trappings.
For
example, to deal with distractions in prayer, the pilgrim is instructed to
focus on a “sacred word” or a mantra instead of receiving guidance on how to
focus on and engage with the Lord himself. Though these purely human methods
can help to minimize distracting thoughts, this positive gain is not in the
direction of the Lord, but of earth or self. In the end, it does nothing, in
and of itself, to draw one deeper into union with Christ in prayer. Properly
used, these methods can provide fertile ground for focus on the Lord, but more
often the end is silence of the mind and centering in self rather than engaging
with God.
To be
clear, the problem here is not necessarily in the methods, but in a shallow
focus. This focus diverts our attention from the understanding that prayer is,
in its essence, a communion between persons, not a spiritualized mental or
psychological exercise. I am not discounting all of these methods wholesale.
The problem is primarily rooted in misuse and a misunderstanding of authentic
ascetical and mystical theology as the appropriate backdrop for the
understanding and use of any prayer method.
In our next
post we will cover the progressive nature of prayer and how a misunderstanding
of this reality can lead us way off the narrow path of a deepening relationship
with God in prayer.
Read more:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/dan-burke/how-can-i-avoid-false-teachings-on-prayer-part-i-of-iii/#ixzz2ZMJn7OUN