Mysticism. How do we understand the term?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
I'm wondering whether some of us may be at cross-purposes on the 'changing face' of evangelicalism thread when it comes to the issue of 'mysticism'.
How do we understand the term?
Does it carry positive or negative connotations for us?
Does it have any part or role in our particular faith traditions?
How do we understand the term?
Does it carry positive or negative connotations for us?
Does it have any part or role in our particular faith traditions?
Comments
There are some types of mysticism that are native to evangelicalism as a broader phenomena, I'm thinking of certain charismatic practices in particular.
Although some evangelicals wouldn't regard Pentecostals and charismatics as being evangelical, of course.
They would use the term more restrictive.
But yes. I agree.
It may help if we define what we mean by 'mysticism' though.
I s'pose I'm asking how Shipmates might define or characterise it, as some appeared to regard it somewhat pejoratively over on the 'changing face of evangelicalism' thread - as if it might be all about practices and 'techniques' rather than Christ.
As things stand, I'm less freaked out than I was, and much happier about it, though still very much a child in this area. I have a lot to learn. But a couple of things have been made very clear to me personally, doubtless because I'd destroy myself spiritually if God didn't put the guard rails up for me.
The first is that these experiences have absolutely NOTHING at all to do with the virtue, faith level, or favored status of the person they happen to. Zip, zilch, nada. And if I allow them to create pride in me God will rip them away so fast my head will spin.
The second is that they are not self-created, and no course of actions on my part ("three step programs" or the like) is going to bring them about or somehow "deepen" them. They are not a self-improvement program. They are not even progressive as far as I can see--I mean, on a humanly observable level. Like all Christian growth, things happen or don't on the Spirit's timetable, and I'm not in charge, and every time I try to figure him out, I've got a roughly eighty percent chance of being dead wrong. (I love to understand and predict things because I'm a control freak. But God won't have it, and it makes me crazy.)
This leaves me collecting what he gives me, like a child with a toy treasure chest or a girl with a jewelry box. I write stuff down so I don't forget what he's given me, and every so often I look back to enjoy it again. But a great deal of it is not what you'd call pleasurable--I mean, getting told to go apologize to someone! Or to deal with some particularly scary challenge!--or dealing with the periodic sense of his absence, which I hate but get no say in.
Forgive me for running on at the mouth. You may not call this mysticism at all, though the handful of people I consulted used that term. But whatever it is, above all it's been made clear to me that Christ is at the center of it, or else it's no more than a temptation--a very attractive and dangerous one for me. So I try to walk as carefully as I can.
I'll tread carefully but I suspect your tradition may have more 'mystical' elements than might be apparent at first sight.
I've heard that a certain Martin Luther was influenced to some extent by Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics.
There is also a somewhat mystical strand in Augustinian thought, although St Augustine isn't always thought of in those terms.
So it'll be there in your tradition's DNA to some extent or other, even if it's not codified into 'Three Step Programmes' and the like.
I have no idea what the experiences you refer to entail, nor is it any of my business. But you do 'sound' somewhat mystical to me, insofar as you appear to acknowledge direct spiritual experiences of one form or other.
If we define mysticism as some means of 'apprehending' or engaging with the Divine then it sounds to me that this is what you are doing.
As for the 'human-made' aspects of religion ... well, I think we have to beware of dualism here. The Church is both a human and a Divine institution at one and the same time. The Holy Scriptures are both divinely inspired yet written by human beings using human faculties. 'Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.'
Heck, the Incarnation had a human element. Mary bore the Incarnate Word and gave birth to Christ. It didn't happen in a test tube.
God uses 'means' as the Reformed put it. That could be the AA 12-Step programme. It could be Ignatius of Loyola's Spiritual Exercises. It could be any manner of things.
A 'human' dimension doesn't take the God aspects out of the equation.
That's why we Orthodox emphasise synergia.
And why I irritate everyone with my both/and formularies. Although I was doing that long before I was Orthodox.
I s'pose what I'm suggesting is that the 'steps' or processes described by a St Theresa of Avila, say, or the author of 'The Cloud of Unknowing' or Evelyn Underhill or whoever else are attempts - however partial or flawed- to describe the ineffable and indescribable.
That doesn't make them right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent. They are attempts.
The Orthodox Tradition doesn't try to codify or pin these things down too tightly, but we do have protocols and practices to try and keep things on an even keel.
Yes, the Jesus Prayer can become a kind of 'mantra' if we are not careful - and all spiritual practices need to be handled carefully.
That applies to fasting, Bible study, meditation or whatever else Christians do across the various traditions.
In chaplaincy I come across the occasional person who describe, what I understand to be, mystical experiences, not necessarily with a religious connection.
I do have a fondness for St Julian of Norwich as I am told that she said "she visited hell, and no-one was there, not even a Jew."
I would say not.
Others may say otherwise.
I think - at the risk of second-guessing @Lamb Chopped's reservations as well as other people's - that objections to what we might call 'mystical' practices are based on the entirely reasonable and understandable concern that these things might 'artificially' induce a sense of direct connection with the divine or become ends in themselves and deflect attention from Christ.
That, as far as I can tell, was one of the objections from the RC West towards the 'Byzantine hesychasts' in the 14th century.
Some Eastern monks were claiming to see the 'Uncreated Light of Tabor' - the same ligt that dazzled the disciples at the Transfiguration.
Not unreasonably, some on the RC side of the controversy were concerned that the 'hesychasts' were inducing such experiences through 'navel-gazing' and prolonged and extreme ascetic practice.
As ever with such controversies there was much 'talking past each other' on both sides.
It's interesting thar over the years the RCC has revised its initial frosty response to the issue and there is now more common ground between them and ourselves on the matter.
Ok, I'm Orthodox so am naturally more inclined to take 'our' side on the matter but would say that 'the West' - if I can put it such generic terms - were right to questionnand raise concerns but equally the Orthodox were right to stress the possibility of direct experience of the divine - although God always remains immutable - over against a 'Western' tendency towards an overly 'Scholastic' and nationalistic approach.
Another both/and thing ... 😉
@LatchKeyKid - fair do's. I'm not saying that everyone has yo have 'mystical' or transcendent experiences, whether they hsve an evangelical or any other Christian background.
I've cited the RC apologist Ronald Knox on these boards before in that he claimed never to have had a 'religious experience' in his life.
Does this invalidate his Christian faith? I don't think so.
Yes, there is a strongly mystical dimension to Orthodoxy and that's one of the reasons I found - and find- it attractive whatever frustrations and perplexities I might find alongside that.
But the most we would say is that direct experience of the presence of God through prayer - or other means - is possible.
It is possible not compulsory.
The 'complications' arise because we are human beings and want to codify or 'bottle' or explain these things. Hence the development of 'steps' and 'programmes' and so on.
I don't think there is anything necessarily 'wrong' with these attempts to systematise things - synergia and all that.
St Luke set out to write things down in an orderly manner. Was he 'wrong' to do so?
Whatever our Christian tradition we use hymns, readings, liturgies, prayers, actions. These develop over time. Are they 'human-made' or can God work in and through them?
Yes, of course it is possible to construct 'soulish' or phoney systems but as human beings we are 'wired' to discern patterns, to order and organise things. That is how we 'developed' as a species and there are plus and minus sides to that of course.
All Christian traditions seem to have developed checks and balances when dealing with these things - even the most 'way-out' ones set boundaries of one form or other.
I'm 'with' Evelyn Underhill and others who have tried to describe, define and write about these things.
I'm also with @Alan29 that these things 'need' not be complicated beyond a direct sense of connection with God through prayer or other means.
Nor do I doubt that people of all faiths or none have mystical or transcendent experiences of some kind.
I wouldn't presume to codify or define what's going on in those instances nor is it incumbent upon to do so.
It's my responsibility to 'work out' my 'own salvation with fear and trembling', to love my neighbour as myself and to work thesecthings out in community and connection with other people, seeking always their good above my own.
I have enough on to do that without speculating about what experiences other people may or may not have.
And it is used, sometimes, to define things we, as GLEs, should avoid.
I also think a lot of fraudsters from last century used it as a term for their smoke and mirrors trickery - seances and suchlike.
But I know that it is used today in terms of "experiences we cannot explain". I would probably call this "engaging with the divine" or "touching the numinous". I accept that this is really just a terminology difference. But for me, because the terminology is so loaded, it is importatnt to get this right.
I'm also part of a church body which would regard the terms "mystic" and "mysticism" with the deepest suspicion and I can't think of anyone in my church with whom I could use those words.
Furthermore, I am not in a position to evaluate/understand the claims of people that tell me they have had one, except to say that I cannot identify with the experience they relate.
As an outsider to religion, I find it disturbing when a person is so caught up in their mystical thing that they seem to stop functioning as a normal person. To take a random example like those Hindu swarmis who wander around in a world of their own.
But then I think I find virtually all forms of fervent religion pretty weird, if not disturbing.
Thanks for the clarification @LatchKeyKid. I do understand where you are coming from.
@Nenya, I like Richard Rohr's definition too and whether we are comfortable or uncomfortable with the term 'mystic' as @Schroedingers Cat outlines, I think many of us would go along with it.
I certainly do, although I do have reservations about some of Richard Rohr's thoughts on these matters.
@Basketactortale - yes, I find that sort of thing creepy too - and in Christian contexts as well as other religions.
I think we have to get away from the idea that 'mystical experience' has to involve altered states of consciousness or bizarre behaviour.
I've cited Brother Lawrence peeling potatoes for his fellow monks.
I'd suggest that George Herbert's 'Something understood' in one of his poems about 'Prayer' is mystical, but he certainly didn't go off into a trance or levitate off the ground in order to craft his poetry.
I would agree with @Schroedingers Cat that 'mysticism' may be too loaded a term for what we are discussing here.
I'd be open to alternatives.
The Puritans talked about the 'religious affections'. I like that phrase but like any terminology we might use it has its limitations.
Perhaps we are talking about the 'affective' aspects of religion?
But again that doesn't quite seem to cover it.
I think what I'm trying to say is that 'mysticism' as I understand it - as far as I can do so, doesn't necessarily imply altered states or sitting on top of poles or psyching oneself up in some way.
Which is why I'm suggesting - but who am I to do so? - that the sort of thing @Lamb Chopped is talking about is 'mystical experience' eve though she isn't following some kind of join-the-dots self-help programme calculated to induce a particular response.
I'd question whether such deliberately and avowedly structured acts were a feature of 'genuine' mysticism at all ... which doesn't mean I'm against 'programmes' or structured contemplative prayer techniques.
Far from it.
In Orthodoxy the use of the Jesus Prayer is firmly regulated to prevent it becoming a form of woozy self-hypnosis.
I wouldn't undertake any prolonged use of it without the help of a spiritual guide. I tend to use it as an 'arrow prayer' or ab occasional prayer to supplement my regular set or extemporary prayers.
I certainly wouldn't use it as a means of zoning out in the expectation of visions or special experiences and so on.
The same was true back in my full on charismatic days pretty much. I didn't generally set out to gain particular experiences. I did sometimes but as a general rule was on an even keel.
I did have charismatic experiences though and I'm not decrying them. But I'm not chasing after them either.
Again, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I used to play squash, the adrenaline gave me a rush, which I liked so I went back for more. People can get it from a nice meal or standing in a crowd at a football match, never mind various mind-bending drugs and preparations.
The difference between these and religion is that nobody is saying the euphoria you feel from being in a crowd is a state that you want to permanently be in. Addicts who want highs from medication have usually lost some sense of themselves.
Two people can stand together on a mountain top and feel awe at the majesty of the creator ... but both will experience something different. How would each of those two people express what they felt to the other which builds on the experience? Even when they share experiences from the same event, it's not easy to see how those experiences are shared ... and much less so how someone who wasn't on that mountain top would gain from the experiences of the two who were there.
Without a means to adequately communicate what someone experiences or learns from an experience, how does that become an activity that builds up the body of Christ? Mysticism risks becoming a road to a very individualistic religion, where the barriers to sharing mystical experience separate people rather than bring them together. People can write down their experiences, or tell others, but what does that mean to those who have not had that sort of experience? How do we prevent the mystical experience of one individual from being a mystery to everyone else?
It seems to me that individualism is a different axis to mysticism. There are obviously documented instances of people experiencing religious euphoria in large groups.
For example those huge numbers of Muslim Hajis when they reach Mecca. Part of the experience is being in the space experiencing it with everyone else, no?
I imagine it must be similar to the huge crowds of Sikhs at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, where there are tens of thousands of devotees even on a "normal" day.
I doubt they would describe the experience as individual.
I don't know any people of faith who do that, even at the extreme end of things.
When I go to the toilet I wipe my backside. I don't expect my arse to miraculously wipe itself.
@Alan29 - of course. The existence of religious mysticism whether Christian, Sufi, Jewish, Hindu, Jain or whatever else doesn't preclude other forms of non-religious or non-theistic mysticism.
Some of the Romantic poets were somewhat 'mystical' without necessarily signing up to formal creedal Christianity.
@Alan Cresswell which is why Richard Rohr calls his outfit the 'Center for Action and Contemplation.' The idea is that the two go together, the activist and the contemplative.
I wouldn't necessarily endorse or sign up for everything he flies under that banner but agree with the principle.
I don't think anyone here is advocating a solipsistic form of 'self-improvement' mysticism divorced from the rough and tumble of everyday life, whether in a monastery or in a parish or local congregation.
I would agree that some forms of eremitic spirituality can head in that direction but in Orthodoxy the ideal is that hermits take part in the Eucharistic life of the Church.
There is, of course, potential for tension between what we might call the institutional and the charismatic and the 'Interdox' has a tendency to encourage allegiance to a particular 'elder' or staretz rather than the official channels, as it were.
So no, I don't see a dichotomy between mysticism (for want of a better word) and building up the Body of Christ or engagement in the wider world.
I'm not saying that the eremitic Sister Wendy Beckett presenting a TV series on art is necessarily the best example, but it did happen ...
@LatchKeyKid - it's your experience not mine so I'm reluctant to pontificate whether there was a 'mystical' element or evidence of divine leading in it. Some would say so. Others wouldn't.
It's not for me to say. How you 'interpret' that confluence of circumstances is up to you not me.
Your own integrity must come first.
I was reflecting on the religious experience of being a Hindu swarmis (or other fervent believer) for whom the experience of the mystical is a constant moment-to-moment experience.
Whether that applies to you and, as you elegantly put it, your arse, only you know.
I can't speak for the Hindu swarmi or anyone else for that matter, but I can speak for my own arse as well as out of it ... 😉
FWIW I adapted the trope from a former Pentecostal I knew 30 years ago who used to say, 'However wonderful the meeting was you still have to wash your socks.'
My more earthy version of it appeared in my post. You still have to ...
The point I'm making is that if any of us are in any way 'mystically' inclined then it doesn't absolve us from responsibility to those around us, from looking after ourselves properly or playing a role in wider society.
Nor from 'building up the Body of Christ' as @Alan Cresswell put it.
I made the point in the crudest terms in order to emphasise it.
Seems you took it literally.
To take a common, but more trivial example. Imagine a crowd at a football match, after full time of a tight contest the game is tied until just before the end of injury time a winning goal is scored. A large part of the crowd will have a euphoric experience of their side scoring that winning goal at the death - but another part of the crowd will have a completely different experience. Even within the supporters of the winning side there will be people experiencing that event differently, some might have been there expecting a close contest and others thought that despite the result their side should have been dominant throughout; some might have personal connections (eg: went to school with) the scorer of the winning goal and experience that differently from other fans; we could go on. A crowd of people who all experience the same few seconds of a football match differently. Each person experiencing it uniquely.
If we move to a more religious context, that difference in experience between people at the same event may be wider still. I've been to events where a large group were asked to meditate silently on something, with only the short text of Scripture or an image common the range of experiences is substantial (in my case, that's almost always been the experience of being woken up when someone says that time is up). Even when that's guided more actively that's no guarantee that everyone will have the same experience. I know from my experience preaching that people will come up to me after the service and thank me for a particular point that wasn't the main point of what I was saying - or, may not even have been anything I said - because that "guided meditation" on a passage I'd preached had given people different insights than I had intended, because everyone comes from a different place (and, to be clear, IMO that's fantastic that people got something from my sermon even if not quite what I had intended).
We all have purely individual experiences, none of us are identical so even within the same event our experience of it will differ (that's true for everything, not just the "mystical", whatever that means). It's only when we share those experiences with others that the essential individualism of our experiences begins to build our communal life. My question was how the more personal and individual experiences where the point of common ground is less clear and solid builds up a community. When very few have powerful mystical experiences, how are we to comprehend the insights of those who have? I'm somewhat reminded of the conversation between Spock and McCoy in ST4, where McCoy tries to engage Spock in a philosophical discussion on death given Spock's recent experience “Doctor, it would be impossible for me to discuss death with you without having a common frame of reference.”, “Are you telling me I will need to die first in order to discuss your insights on death?”
We were none of us around at the Sermon on The Mount but we have the Gospels and preaching, teaching, commentaries etc based on that.
It's why we need the Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church and/or whatever figures are prominent on our own particular circles, churches and denominations.
No Methodist today was with Wesley at Aldersgate Street, but we/they have his Journal account to discuss/debate or contemplate.
No Orthodox Christian was around when St Seraphim of Sarov or any other Saint or mystic from times past was around, but we have their writings or hagiographies about them or sayings or exploits attributed to them however legendary these may be or expanded in the telling.
None of us were with Julian of Norwich in her anchorite cell but we can read her book.
C'mon. It's not that difficult. 😉
You're a preacher. You could insert any of this stuff into your sermons and people may benefit from hearing you do so. In that way the 'mystics' could be building up the Body of Christ through your preaching. Though dead they still speak.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see how that might work, surely?
I don't know. It certainly looks to me like these large groups are having shared experiences which amount to more than the sum of individual experiences.
With respect to you and your sermons, I suspect that this has more in common with academic lectures than euphoric religious experiences. Awakening understanding in a listener is something distinct from the mystical, I would suggest. Although I can't say that I have a lot of experience of sermons compared to listening to academic talks.
Not every experience in a sports crowd is identical, but enough are similar enough to describe the broad outlines of sporting crowd euphoria.
And thanks, @Nenya!
I think it’s not necessary for all individual experiences to be shared. I’m thinking here of the experiences St Paul mentions, which we would certainly call “mystic” today under most definitions, but which he never said anything about beyond the fact that they existed (and so the Corinthians or whoever could get off their high horse, as if they were somehow spiritually superior). Indeed, he said he wasn’t permitted to speak about some of it.
As for me, the primary value of what I’ve been given seems to lie in some personal difficulties God is slowly healing, which will make me a more effective servant of Christ and the church in the end—and also the fact that for me, these gifts have increased my love for Christ and his people. That’s a good enough outcome in my opinion, even if I never tell anyone anything more. He didn’t call me as a prophet, after all.
As to this the fact that in my church body we have a thing called “doctrinal review” which is more or less a process that publications etc go through to make sure un-Scriptural crap doesn’t get fed to people through official or semi-official channels. I’m grateful for it, as I’d hate to find myself explaining to Jesus how I ended up feeding his sheep the equivalent of magic mushrooms, if you know what I mean!
That doesn't mean that we are unable to apprehend it personally or individually of course.
But the fact that your church has a 'doctrinal review' process illustrates and underlines my point.
Such a thing wouldn't be necessary otherwise.
It also reinforces your point that these things are for 'sharing' even if we don't share all the details as per the Apostle Paul.
'No man (or woman) is an island entire of itself.'
We all need one another. These boards are just one of many examples of that.
And 'yes' to what @Nick Tamen says about shared and collective experiences.
Really it’s much like any other relationship in this. If my sister happens to say something insightful and I benefit from it, I might pass that along to a friend in similar situation too. What I won’t do is say “Thus saith the Lord!” unless it’s clearly found in Scripture. Because wow, would that ever be a dangerous thing to do, both for me and my listener. Yikes. What if I was wrong?
Uhm, same could be said of many sermons if you interviewed the congregation.
Indeed, if you take the Reformed theology of a sermon, listening to them is a mystical experience, for you are not listening for what the preacher is saying, but what is God communicating through them to you.
Something which is often overlooked.
Equally, if I understand it correctly and apologies to @Lamb Chopped if I don't and also for using the 'M' word (which I'll continue to do until someone supplies a better one), there's a 'mystical' understanding of the Eucharist in Lutheranism too.
And in Anglicanism too, come to that ... which is something many Anglicans don't always appreciate.
Nailing my colours to the mast I'd suggest that there are 'mystical' elements across the entire Christian spectrum.
That doesn't imply altered states of consciousness or euphoria or particular prescribed experiences.
Nor does it mean that we should go round declaring 'Thus saith the Lord' to people either and I don't think @Lamb Chopped that I suggested that we did.
What I was driving at, however clumsily, was that 'the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good' to paraphrase the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians.
Genuine 'mystical' experience should indeed build up the Body of Christ, whether that means spiritual refreshment for someone to enable them to serve more effectively or something shared with other people in the way Lamb Chopped describes.
I was using 'shared' in a loose sense in the sense of the benefits being shared with others - not that we should go round telling everyone the details of whatever spiritual experiences we may graciously receive.
Apologies for thinking it was all about my posts. Mea culpa!
That'll teach me ... (I hope).
At least, when they were fraudulent. Whether or not the real thing counts as "mysticism" or just the supernatural would be another matter.
I find the way the term "mysticism" is used varies widely enough that I need to see context before I know what someone is talking about. It could be something good or something bad, something true or something false. (Perhaps as well the word "spiritual" which has become even vaguer, sadly.)
I personally believe there is great value in spiritual disciplines and practices. The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection is about a simple monk who, over his many years with the Discalced Carmelites in Paris, cultivated a permanent awareness of God's presence, initially by thinking about God and talking to Him as a friend, and later by resting constantly and silently in His presence. He points out that it's a practice which needs to be persued with much diligence in the early stages.
The recitation of the Jesus Prayer, as practiced by the Desert Fathers and Mothers of the Orthodox Hesychast tradition is also a way of staying permanently focused on the presence of Christ. While it has some superficial similarities to mantra meditation, there's a big difference between emptying the mind, as in Hindu and Buddhist practices, and filling the mind, heart, and soul, with the presence of Christ.
I would call those things practical mysticism for the average Christian. Along with disciplines like fasting, which I admit to being hopeless at, they discipline our minds and bodies Godward and away from petty concerns of the ego. I see that as being about denying self and taking up one's cross to follow Christ.
I put any interpretation of Scripture on pretty much the same level as someone saying something insightful, to be honest. Both have similar characteristics - subjective, contradictory, and often, in retrospect, a source of complete bollocks.
That's not what I think of when I think of 'mysticism'.
Like you, I tend to think of people like Brother Lawrence or the Desert Fathers and Mothers.
Sure, some of them were given to extremes. As @Lamb Chopped says, we have to handle all this stuff carefully. Even when it is 'kosher' it still needs handling with care.
@KarlLB yes, of course people speak a load of bollocks at times. I've done so myself. Many, many times.
I don't think anyone here is talking about giving directive, 'infallible' Thus Saith The Lord stuff to those around us. We do have apparent examples of that sort of thing in the Lives of the Saints and in stories about contemporary 'elders' or staretz.
That can all be open to abuse. I've heard that after the collapse of Communism there was a big upsurge in Eastern Europe of manipulative monks presuming to speak 'God's word' directly into people's lives in a way that was every bit as reminiscent of the excesses of the 'Shepherding Movement' within charismatic evangelicalism.
We all need to be on our guard and keep our Bollocks-Detectors or Bull-Shit Detectors primed.
I like what @pablito1954 says above about 'practical mysticism'. That will do for me, although I appreciate that not everyone will see things that way.
I wouldn't describe Scripture as bollocks either. Interpretations of it however often are.
Issues like faith and works and sola scriptura or scripture and tradition or Tradition have come up explicitly or implicitly on this thread and the 'changing face of evangelicalism' one.
I may start another thread on how we might discern, to use @Lamb Chopped's phrase, what is 'unscriptural crap.'
Is everything that is 'extra-biblical' crap? I don't think anyone is saying that, but our respective mileages are going to vary as to what we accept or permit in relation to its perceived congruence or otherwise to Holy Writ.
Who gets to decide? What criteria do we use? That sort of thing.
Oh, Spoiler Alert, the Orthodox wrote the New Testament in the first place so we obviously know best ... 😉
We are right and everyone else is wrong.
No, seriously I'm up for open and eirenic discussion and both/and positions ...
May see you that thread if I start it.