Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church John Chryssavgis George Demacopolous. Five Models of Spiritual Direction in the Early Church. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. Pp. 274. $30.00. Originally a doctoral dissertation at the University of North Carolina on the pastoral strategies of Pope Gregory I, this book explores the struggles of five patristic authorities (Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory the Theologian, Augustine of Hippo, John Cassian, and Gregory I of Rome) to reconcile their ascetic principles with their pastoral responsibilities. With the exception of John Cassian, the authors were bishops of important medieval churches. All of them, however, sought to balance the tension between spiritual idealism and secular realism in diverse geographical and cultural contexts throughout early Christendom. The subtle varieties among their models of spiritual direction demonstrate both the complexity of the issue as well as the variable nature of Christianity during the foundational and formative decades of monasticism. In late antiquity, the rising number of Christians entering the priesthood faced a profoundly spiritual and pastoral dilemma: whether to adhere to a more traditional approach to church life, or to advocate a more monastic model of spiritual direction. The dilemma was between the more institutional or administrative approach and the more inspirational or charismatic approach. The truth is that the early Church never fully reconciled these two ways, even if, in the hands of individual bishops or charismatic leaders, it tended toward one or another direction. From the age of Constantine until late antiquity, the formal (or more "hierarchical") ecclesiastical institution and the charismatic (or more "lay") monastic tradition continued to be regarded as complementary and essential to [End Page 611] the integrity of the gospel and the church. Neither the church in the world nor the flight to the desert was without its respective weaknesses: monastics reminded the church of its unadmitted temptation toward complacency, while the church reminded monastics of their unrelenting tendency toward isolation (169). Over time, however, a gradual shift in ecclesiastical priority regarding spiritual direction—" from Athanasius' ambivalence to Gregory's systematic integration of the ascetic and the clerical traditions" (166)—would harden into a difference in practice with regard to ecclesiastical leadership. Demacopoulos explores spiritual direction in its social and political dimensions. Yet, out of the five ecclesiastical and monastic leaders examined in this book, Athanasius and Augustine alone are said to have "offered little (if any) endorsement of the spiritual father/spiritual disciple model of supervision. Athanasius described Antony as a spiritual father, but he never developed the model for himself; Augustine seems to have ignored it altogether. Perhaps this is because both Athanasius and Augustine spent much of their episcopacy in the throes of theological conflict" (167). While both bishops certainly display similarities in terms of the doctrinal pressures that shaped their ministries, and although Augustine clearly regarded himself as indirectly influenced by Athanasius, nevertheless there is surely something to be said about the way that Athanasius revered the "father of monasticism." For, if Athanasius does not explicitly articulate a theology of asceticism in his works, which are primarily shaped by the controversy and conflict that he addressed and refuted, yet he certainly incarnated the ascetic model of spiritual direction. Even if the ascetic pattern of spiritual formation was "not yet fully developed" (81), the great Alexandrian visionary was surely able to reconcile the ascetic and the clerical models within himself. Were it not for the activity of certain exceptional leaders, such as Athanasius and Basil, monasticism might well have devolved into a para-ecclesiastical movement, as it frequently both tended and threatened to do. Although Demacopoulos recognizes that "some readers will question [his] selection of authors" (20), his study would have benefited from comparison with the unique model of spiritual direction proposed by the renowned elders of Gaza, Barsanuphius the Great and John the Prophet. These charismatic monastics struggled to achieve and promote an extraordinary reconciliation between the establishment of the hierarchy (there are a number of letters to and about bishops), the experience of the desert in a secular world, and the formation of the laity (numerous letters are addressed by and directed to lay Christians). This book will appeal...