13

The Flowering of Natural Contemplation:

Some Notes on Theoria Physike in
Thomas Merton's Unpublished
An Introduction to Christian Mysticism
By Donald P. St. John

Several years ago I was researching Merton 's ideas o n nature and place at the Merton Center.
Reali zing that some of the material I had access to had not been published or even widely alluded to
elsewhere, I decided to prepare a short synopsis o f one of my "finds." Me rton offered a course in
mysticism to the no vices at Gethsemani in the early 1960s. His lecture notes for this course bear the
title An /11troductio11 to Christian Mysticism. Section 8 is called ··contemplation and the Cosmos."
While in this section Merton's exposition of the notion of theoria physike primarily relies upon
Maxi mus the Confessor, he al so draws on his stud ies of Gregory of Nyssa and Evagrius Pon ti cus.
Naturall y, my research interests at the time influe nced what I took from this section.
Near the beginning of the section Merton expresses his concern that. among the monks of his
day, the lack of a capacity for "natural contempl ation" or theoria physike contri butes to a ·'stunt ing"
of their spiritual growth. He contends that it is only with the fl owering of contemplation on the level
of symbols, types, and /ogoi that a pe rson can be "fully and integrall y prepared fo r theologia without
forms, beyond all ideas and symbols." 1 Me rton e laborates on this central thesis, both drawing upon
Max i mus and c reati vely engaging this ancient figure in a dialogue with modernity. Thereby, M e rton
expands on and offers fresh insight into the Patristic notion of theoria physike. 2
What is natural contemplation? Merton claims chat it is a conte mplation (theoria) accordin g to
nature (physis) and a knowledge (g nosis) of the di vine as present " in and through nature" and " in
hi story." It is a human wisdom (multiformis sapentia) whereby one grasps directl y the wisdom of
God as Creator and Redeemer (56). Natural conte mplati on is necessary fo r both the completion of
our m oral transformation a nd the entrance into the life of contem-
plation. As a spiritual contemplation it proceeds from love and is
only available to those whose minds and hearts a re ··pure." In this it
di ffers from the scientific understanding of nature which ··is only
intellectual and accessible to the impure as well as to rhe pure."
Theoria physike cannot be characterized simplisti cally either as mys-
tical. passive, and supernatural or as intellectual, active, and natu-
ral. Merton calls its operation a manifestati on of a "syne rgy" be-
tween the di vine and human. faith and nature (57).

DONALD P. ST. JOHN is Professor and Chair of the Department of Religion at

Moravian College. Bethlehem. Pennsylvania. He has contributed to The Merton
Annual and has given papers at the ITMS General Meeting and the Kansas Merton
Conference. He is editor of Tei/ha rd Srudies and a member of the Board of Di rector~
of the American Teilhard Association. DONALD P. ST. JOHN
14

When Merton contends that natural contemplation is "natural" for humans, he means that it is a
mode of awareness intended for humans by God. It is "proper" to humans as children of God and was
theirs in paradise. This implies that before aspiring to theologia, or the highest level of contempla-
tion, one must become full y human. which means being " restored first of all to this ' natural' contem-
plation of the cosmos" (58).
Natural contemplation, then, is the recovery of the Edenic mode of consciousness-and-being in
which no radical separation exists between God, humanity, and nature. The universe is meant to be
diaphanous. According to Maximus, the seventh-century "Father of Byzantine mystics," original sin
did not damage "this unique masterpiece which is this visible world in which God manifests Himself
by a silent revelation," notes Merton (57). Although original si n did lead to a "loss'' of thi s Edenic
consciousness in humans, those who are pure in heart recover something of thi s " natural contempla-
tion," being oriented towards the knowledge of God present in nature.
ln the light of this knowledge, all creatures "are good and pure," says Merton. Maximus de-
fended his Edenic view of nature by pointing to the vision of St. Peter wherein God revealed to Peter
that there are no unclean animals. However, this "external" vision depends upon an internal, active
detachment. But this detachment should not be mistaken for indifference, says Merton. The biblical
understanding of the inherent goodness and purity of creatures does not permit a "negative indiffer-
ence" towards them on our part, but de mands "a positive awareness. by love, of the value of crea-
tures, divinely given to them" (6 1). The logoi of things are internally orienting them to unity in God's
love (60). The logoi of things are the Logos (Christ as Word) present in them.
Merton expands on these ideas and claims that natural contemplation " is demanded by the cos-
mos itself and by history."' Why is this so? Because, if we cannot "know creatures by this spiritual
gnosis they will be frustrated of their end" (57). Natural contemplation, therefore, is of central impor-
tance to the human "spirituali zation and restoration of the cosmos."' This becomes more clear when
we realize that this mode of knowledge cannot be separated from love or from our behavior. Merton
emphasizes that "'the right use ofcreatures is essential to the proper understanding of them" (61 ). In
short, theoria is incomplete without praxis.
Furthermore, as a vision of the cosmos, natural contemplation " is essen ti ally sophianic," uniting
"the hidden wisdom of God in things with the hidden light of wisdom" in ourselves. The result is a
"resplendent clarity.. which is "'the presence of the Divine Wisdom" both "full y recognized and
active." Merton again reminds us that natural contemplation goes beyond intellectual awareness and
exercises "a spritualizing influence in the world" through the work of our hands. But our work must
itself be "in accord with the creative wisdom of God in things a nd in history" (59).
This sophianic and contemplati ve orientation should free the monk from any " negati ve" attitude
towards nature and history. The world "is no longer seen as merely material. hence as an obstacle that
has to be grudgingly put up with. It is spiritual through and through:· But the destiny of this ·'spiri-
tual" dimension is not simply given. Its future condition depends upon human spirituality. We our-
selves must be "purified" if thi s spiritual movement in things is to be furthered "by our knowledge
and love in our use of them" (59).
To attain "full maturity and integrity in the spiritual life." each of us must unite theo ria and
praxis. But such an act is impossible if its referent is simply our interior state. Rather. our praxis must
be in accord with the logoi of "externaf" realities. Merton reminds his monh that the logoi must be
understood in the contex t of modern thought where both creation and history are perceived as dy-
 15

namic and c hanging. We no longer exist in a static universe and should not understand the Logoi
within that model. This dynamic process manifests the action of the Logos, which. present in the
logoi, imparts to things a direction and purpose, i.e., a telos.
The Christian interprets thi s telos in the contex t of Christ's Spirit having entered the dynamics of
creatio n and human history. The /ogoi of things are now ordered toward their spiritualization and
ultimate restoration in Christ. Things have come from God and are now returning to God. The old
creation is being made new.
The Christian is called upon to participate in the spiritualization of all facets of life, including the
political, artistic, and re ligious, notes Merton. The artist has a special vocation in relation to the Logoi
of things. He or she must be in tune with things both in their deepest center and in thei r mode of
action, tha t is, in their logoi and their tropoi. Things have an inne r logic placed there by their Creator.
The arti st must be sensitive to the unique voice or vocation of each being and must vigorously protest
when things are being prevented from attaini ng their spiritual end by individual or societal misuse.
Society must be held accountable for its "systematic obscuring and desecration of the Logoi of things
and of their sacred meaning" (63).
The artist's use of things depends upon and is sustained by his or her vision. That is, the technical
gift of the maker is sustained by the spiritual gift of the seer. The artist grasps the inner logos of a
being and manifests it in the form he or she gives to the work of art. Merton points to Shaker furni-
ture, handicrafts, and buildings as examples of this fusing of spirit and tec hnic, theoria and praxis.
Even in the siting of their buildings, the Shakers evinced a sensitivity to the logos of a place. The
Shaker barn is so tied to place and so fits into place that it "grasps and expresses the hidden Logos of
the valley or hillside ... which forms its site." Such sensitivity was also found among Cistercians of
the twelfth century, claims Merton (64). "Primitive" peoples, according to Merton, could also grasp
their world and respond to it in this way. In fact, the works of the primitivist painter Le Douanier
Rousseau are at least "an analogy of that theoria to wh ich primitives are well disposed" (64).
Merton calls theoria physike a creative "synergy" that can occur on many levels, overcoming old
oppositions: sense and spirit, seeing and doing, human activity and divine grace. For example, as
sense, when subordinate to spirit, "attains the material object, the spirit attains to the spiritual logos
of that object and the sense pleasure is forgotten" (65). The work of one's hands, the love of one's
heart, and the clarity of one's mind combine in a human wisdom that itself is joined to the creative
wisdom of God at work in nature and history.
Religious ritual is an example of and a model for the synthesis of creative and salvific forces.
Therein, certain created realities through incorporation into a sacramental action participate in the
mystery of salvation. Thus do they represent all creatures who groan for redemption by the children
of God and who already "directl y or indirectly with us" enter into the mystery of Christ. Merton
points out that in our age, unfortunately, this groaning and expectation of c reatures and created things
are too often frusu-ated because our knowledge and use of them are not sophianic and truly soteriological
(62).
The technological mind does not attend co "what" a thing is in itself, much less to its divine telos,
but attends only to what a thing can become or how it can be used in the system of production.
Modem technology exploits and manipulates things in accordance with a value system that is quan-
titative, pragmatic, and impersonal. Thi s has created the great problem of our times, says Merton.
Natural contemplation and proper use are being replaced by a demonic and pseudo-contemplative
16

mystique of technics and production. Change and ··exchange·· become ends in themselvei., and ti!
c reated beings including humans must serve them. Merton abhors the "centrality of destruction in
this process" (62).
Merton goes on to claim that " the chief effort of TeiIhard de Chardin in our time has been a noble
striving to recover a view of the scientific world, the cosmos of the physicist, the geologist, the
e ngineer, with interest centered on the logos of creation, and on value. spirit. An effort to convert the
scientific view of the cosmos into a wisdom, without sacrificing anything of scientific obj ecti vity or
technological utility" (62). Teilhard, like Gregory of Nyssa, had a sense for the theoteles logos.
w hich Merton defined as "that in the thing which comes from God and goes to God., (62).
Merton certainly had his differences with some followers of Te ilhard who were too eager to
baptize a technology that was destroying the earth. But Merton places Teilhard himself within a long
line of natural and mystical theologians. By linking Teilhard's sensitivity to nature with more eco-
log icall y benign techni cs, such as those of the Shakers, Merton suggests an alternati ve way to imple-
ment Teilhard's vision. In doing so he seeks a reconciliation between contemplation and action.
between personal spiritual development and the wise use of nature. The historical project, Merton
implies. must simultaneously nurture the pirirual development o f pe rsons and serve the dynamic
unfolding of a spiritual universe. Such a task demands the recovery of an old way of seeing both
humanity and nature that under Merton's pe n becomes startlingly new.
Yet, this was Merton's special genius. One sees it at work in these notes. His intuitive apprehen-
sion of a way to reconcile the values ofTeilhard operati ng out of a contemporary cosmology and the
values of a contemplati ve tradition often operating out of a static uni verse has, in fac t, proven pro-
phetic. One needs only think o f the work of Thomas Berry who. whi le heavily indebted to Tei Ihard.
emphasizes an ecological spirituality that combines a deep appreciation for the scientific narrati ve o f
creation with a sensiti vity to the spiritual dimension of the earth and universe. Nor is it surpris ing that
today, as Christians seek a more ecological theo logy, they show a renewed inte rest in theologians
such as Maxirnus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa. Merton over thirty-five years ago struggled
with some of these issues and found the ric h seeds that have led to a contemporary fl owering of
theoria physike.

Notes

l. Thomas Merton, An Introduction to Christian Mysticism. unpublished ts., Thomas Merton

Center, Be ll armine College, Loui sville, 56; subseque nt page refere nces to this source are
included parenthetically in the text.
2. In direct quotations from Merton's notes I am following the accepted standards for italicizing
Greek and Latin words and terms. Understandably, Merton was not concerned with consistency
in these notes.