Attitude of Hope in the Poetry of St. John of the Cross in Context of Ethics of Ambiguity and Spiritual Abuse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Attitude of Hope in the Poetry of St John of the Cross in Context of Ethics of Ambiguity and Spiritual Abuse’

This is a most ambitious project, a project more worthy of a monograph, perhaps, than a journal publication. In this case, a consequence of the aim to do so much is that one only scratches the surface, and scratches many surfaces, leaving the reader with the sense that too little was accomplished in the piece. This reader, at any rate, walked away from the essay with very little understanding of what the author understands the nature of mystical experience to consist of, of how the author understands ethics and morality and of how hope, sometimes treated in the essay as a virtue, sometimes, as in the title as an attitude, should be understood. The article is rife with quotations purportedly explaining and illuminating claims the author makes when, in fact, they seem to add too little to one’s understanding of the material discussed.

 

Most readers of the essay, I suspect, will be puzzled by what motivates the author to include much of the material that appears in the paper. Given its place in the title, readers expect a clearer account of what hope is, as St John of the Cross understands it. The author promises as much in lines 39-42. It appears that a “commitment to people living on the peripheries” motivates the exploration of an “ethic of ambiguity” and an “ethic of certainty.” Fair enough, but readers having gained some sense of an ethic of ambiguity and a bit less of an ethic of certainty gain a good deal less than they should about the nature of hope.

 

Readers who approach the essay assuming they understand, more or less, what spiritual abuse consists of are likely to conclude the essay quite perplexed about its relevance to St John of the Cross in particular and to mysticism in general. Some may think the author’s understanding of the importance of autonomy precludes much of what is considered in the western religious traditions to be authentic mystical experience.

 

Some strategies for improving the paper:

 

The author might in greater detail present and analyze hope in the three poems of St John of the Cross discussed. The author helpfully catalogs references to hope in the poems, but seems satisfied with the description of hope as little more than some kind of positive attitude. Does St John have no richer understanding of hope than that?

 

The author might consider whether the “ethical interpretations of the classics” are “ethical interpretations” and whether they add much to the paper. I expected the discussion of Therese of Lisieux and Edith Stein to be much more helpful in thinking about hope than it appears.

 

Section 3.4 is promising, but it reads more as a brief catalogue of some contemporary discussions but it could be improved by greater focus upon hope as a virtue and mystical experience and hope.

 

This reader finds section 4 Ethics of ambiguity and uncertainty rather unhelpful. Beauvoir’s account of ethics is more clearly presented than that of Anker, perhaps because Anker’s ethics of uncertainty just isn’t that clear, but this section reads as though one must have a foil for Carmelite mysticism. The summary of 756-761 is rather surprising given the discussion.

Readers may struggle to understand the importance of sections 4.3 for this project.

 

Section 5 introduces in its title a “principle” of hope which is also an attitude. The point of this section could be clearer.

 

This reader found Section 6 Conclusion not to follow closely from the earlier discussions of the paper. Hope’s significance, for example, is claimed to lie “in its ambivalent nature.” It would be less surprising to claim that the significance of hope lies in its ambiguous nature, perhaps, but well, to claim that either ambivalence or ambiguity is where St John of the Cross found hope’s significance seems to lack support. The same might be said of the final paragraph.

The author might find that, in fact, the paper would be strengthened with less reliance upon sources.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking your time and reviwing my papaer and for such inspiring indications. I attach the pdf file with the responce to your comments and the updated manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an interesting problem in relation to spiritual abuse and the "dark night" as a necessary process for spiritual growth. It offers some directions and priorities that help to prevent the spiritual abuse that can take place through spiritual guidance associated with suffering or the dark night, but this article strikes me more as a means of opening the conversation up to the importance of hope in relation to this problem and the danger of spiritual abuse. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Regarding your comment: 

"The article addresses an interesting problem in relation to spiritual abuse and the "dark night" as a necessary process for spiritual growth. It offers some directions and priorities that help to prevent the spiritual abuse that can take place through spiritual guidance associated with suffering or the dark night, but this article strikes me more as a means of opening the conversation up to the importance of hope in relation to this problem and the danger of spiritual abuse,"

the importance of the text as means of opening the conversation in relation to the problem of abuse and its relation of how the cross may be understood from the very beginning (even in the abstract) will be stressed. I will clarify as well the limits and purposes of the paper: "to help to prevent the spiritual abuse that can take place through spiritual guidance associated with suffering or the dark night."

 I appreciate your support and a positive review of the text. 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author makes clear that this article is an exercise in theology rather than a secular study of St. John's position in that the essay assumes God, and I appreciated also the author’s emphasis on “theology not merely as an abstract and theoretical discipline disconnected from praxis and life” (as academic articles in religious studies often are) and his or her belief that St. John's theology “harmonizes the mystical experience of God with a commitment to people.”

I also found engaging his or her fundamental position on ethics. The author writes on p.14, “It is important to note that virtues are not, in fact, fixed essences of identity or reality.”  This position--that we live in a world of complex potentialities and relationships—of “aporias” that confound fixed laws and notions--is in strong resonance with many of today's postmodern views, but offers a faith-based/ hope-based approach to dealing with the perceived "volatility, uncertainty, change, and ambiguity" of the world around us. ( By the way, the drift away from relying on fixed ethical laws or principles, but rather starting from a place of love and charity, reminded me of K'ung Fu Tzu's view that all issues should be judged from a inner state of jen or "human heartedness," which is why he opposed having any fixed laws.)

I also found compelling the author's view--in agreement with the mystics--that virtue is not something "fixed" that can be memorized and exhibited robotically.  It must be cultivated with effort and patience and applied on a situation-to-situation basis.

Saying all this, and after already making clear that I'm in broad support of this article, I have a few comments that I hope the author will consider to make his or her essay even stronger:

I didn't feel like the Abstract gave a very clear overture of what was to come--for instance, I felt it suggested much more engagement with both John of the Cross and Simone de Beauvoir.  Can this be improved, perhaps by scanning the "Conclusion" for highlights of the essay? Note also that the first sentence of the Abstract makes it sound like John of the Cross and Therese of Jesus were contemporaries in that they "collaborated," though they lived three centuries apart.

The author tells us that the reality of uncertainty is the “dark night” but it would help to make clearer how this ambiguity relates specifically to a sense of spiritual and existential embrace of God as well as a separation from God.

I think the essay needs more clarity on the differences and overlaps between “spiritual” experience and “mystical” experience.  The terms seemed to be used in a range of ways--and sometimes, but not always--as synonymous.

The core of essay references John of the Cross' use of Jesus as a model for Christian behavior.  As God, Jesus was free of the world, but as man he was engaged with it and had to make ethical choices. In that endeavor, he was guided by the voice of God within him, as we should be.  The upshot is that we should not surrender our spiritual freedom to external forces such as Church authorities or dogma.  And related to this view, the author concludes: “Interpreted in the context of spiritual abuse, this means that any practices that violate a person’s dignity should not be regarded as part of the mystical experience of unity and communion with God.” p.18”.  With this is mind, I found myself wondering why there was no mention of how this view relates to the position of Martin Luther, given that ostensibly it seems a perfect fit? In Christian Liberty (1520), Luther wrote, "A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none, and a perfectly free servant of all, subject to all."  Here he was arguing that the inner person is liberated from all worldly authorities and constrictions, but the outer person must exhibit this freedom in their behavior by working--of their own volition--for the good of others, who are also spiritually subject to no authority.  How does John of the Cross' position differ and agree with Luther's view?  Others will also wonder.

 When talking about institutional structures related to the need for the believer to remain in connection with grace, I was reminded of the Quakers, who see church structure as best served by something like a rhizome, with leadership occurring horizontally rather than vertically, based mainly on collective decision-making, rather than a ‘sage on the stage’ arrangement of hierarchical authority.  Is the author arguing for something of the same sort?  Was St. John of the Cross doing so? In short, what structures of authority, if any, might the essay suggest?

I appreciated that the author brought Simone de Beauvoir into his or her essay, and felt that the few references to her work were accurate, but then I wondered if clarity wouldn't also have be served by pointing out, in a sentence or two, how her views regarding aporias differ from those of the mystics.  Her sense of freedom was based on a Nietzschean embrace of ultimate meaninglessness, which allows us the freedom to construct meanings of our own--limited only by the constraint that our personal freedom should not constrict the freedom of others. She certainly didn't agree with the mystics that we have inner spiritual resources that can guide us.  Her position is based on rational assessments, not spiritual graces.

Lastly, There is no period at the end of the third paragraph on p.13.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking your time and reviwing my papaer and for such inspiring indications. I attach the pdf file with the responce to your comments and the updated manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this one of the most interesting and thoughtful pieces  I have reviewed for this journal.  It balances genuine respect for traditional and highly revered materials, with recent critiques and contemporary issues surrounding the implied ethics of mystics' piety. Issues of submission and abuse are so relevant that a very nuanced reading of John of the Cross, and of his interpreters and admirers, constitute an important contribution to scholarship. This kind of treatment can help inform how others read and reread mystical texts and practices. It can move us beyond simple alternatives such as "Does this author offer liberation or oppression?"

Note: on p.2 the 2 paragraphs repeat, lines 45-62.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Considering your comments: 

"I found this one of the most interesting and thoughtful pieces  I have reviewed for this journal.  It balances genuine respect for traditional and highly revered materials, with recent critiques and contemporary issues surrounding the implied ethics of mystics' piety. Issues of submission and abuse are so relevant that a very nuanced reading of John of the Cross, and of his interpreters and admirers, constitute an important contribution to scholarship. This kind of treatment can help inform how others read and reread mystical texts and practices. It can move us beyond simple alternatives such as «Does this author offer liberation or oppression?» Note: on p.2 the 2 paragraphs repeat, lines 45-62"

Firstly, I would like to appreciate your generous and positive statement. I am glad that the text does not leave the reader passive and challenges the ethics of mystics' piety. Secondly, I will underline in the methodology more clearly, how this approach (or treatment) of the reading of John of the Cross may help to reread mystical texts and practices. Thirdly, this is inspiring to feel that the notion of dual polarising options was aimed to be avoided has made the correspondend effect on the reader. Maybe it would be a good idea, as suggested, to introduce it in the text in a more direct way. I will proceed according to that in hope to brign more clarity. 

Thank you once again for these inputs. And, of course, I will delete the repeted text in lines 45-62.

All the best!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a much improved version of the paper. The author has provided much needed clarity in important sections of the paper.

Although the author finds it helpful to refer to mysticism as a "linguistic phenomenon," I am not certain why. It isn't clear what the author means by this claim, and this claim rather brazenly conflicts with those who insist that many, if not all, mystical experiences are ineffable. I don't see why the author needs this claim.