Perhaps not, but I don't think that things like seances are good things to get involved with.
Nor Tarot and so on.
Not necessarily because I think we'd get heeby-geeby-ed by a demon but because scripture and Tradition has good reason not to recommend them or to proscribe such things.
The only form of 'mysticism' I'm interested in is the kind @pablito1954 describes - 'practical Christian mysticism' by which we draw closer to Christ.
I'm not saying that Buddhist or other mystical practices don't have value, but they are different and should be evaluated under their own terms.
But anything that might be 'occult' in the sense that pablito1954 uses the term should be avoided at all costs in my view.
It's not that I think that Mrs Prendergast of 42 Acacia Avenue is going to get demon-possessed by consulting her horoscope, but I don't think it's going to do her any good either.
Again, I s'pose we must define our terms but if by 'occult' you mean esoteric knowledge that derives from sources outside of Christ, then count me out. Big no-no.
Yes. Equally, there is a 'mystical' element in the Reformed understanding of the Eucharist.
Indeed, while many refer to the Reformed understanding as “Spiritual Presence” and Calvin and used the term “True Presence,” John Williamson Nevin entitled in 1846 book on the Reformed understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Mystical Presence: a Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
I've always appreciated Richard Rohr's definition .
I like that, too, and it prompted me to go back and find this that Frederick Buechner said about mysticism:
Mysticism is where religions start. Moses with his flocks in Midian, Buddha under the Bo tree, Jesus up to his knees in the waters of Jordan—each of them is responding to Something of which words like Shalom, Nirvana, God even, are only pallid souvenirs. Religion as ethics, institution, dogma, ritual, Scripture, social action—all of this comes later and in the long run maybe counts for less. Religions start, as Frost said poems do, with a lump in the throat—to put it mildly—or with a bush going up in flames, a rain of flowers, a dove coming down out of the sky. “I have seen things,” Aquinas told a friend, “that make all my writings seem like straw.”
Most people have also seen such things. Through some moment of beauty or pain, some sudden turning of their lives, most of them have caught glimmers at least of what the saints are blinded by. Only then, unlike the saints, they tend to go on as though nothing has happened.
We are all more mystics than we choose to let on, even to ourselves. Life is complicated enough as it is.
Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC (Harper & Row, 1973).
That, in turn, reminded me of one of my favorite bits of poetry, from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Aurora Lee:
Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round and pluck blackberries.
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed.
Perhaps not, but I don't think that things like seances are good things to get involved with.
Nor Tarot and so on.
Not necessarily because I think we'd get heeby-geeby-ed by a demon but because scripture and Tradition has good reason not to recommend them or to proscribe such things.
The only form of 'mysticism' I'm interested in is the kind @pablito1954 describes - 'practical Christian mysticism' by which we draw closer to Christ.
I'm not saying that Buddhist or other mystical practices don't have value, but they are different and should be evaluated under their own terms.
But anything that might be 'occult' in the sense that pablito1954 uses the term should be avoided at all costs in my view.
It's not that I think that Mrs Prendergast of 42 Acacia Avenue is going to get demon-possessed by consulting her horoscope, but I don't think it's going to do her any good either.
Again, I s'pose we must define our terms but if by 'occult' you mean esoteric knowledge that derives from sources outside of Christ, then count me out. Big no-no.
Oh, whether any given practice or experience or notion is good, bad, wise or unwise, etc., I’m just saying that not all of us think that all of those things are specifically demonic. Personally I make distinctions within that whole general region (for instance, I believe in avoiding Ouija at all costs, but with Tarot, I think it depends on what you’re trying to do with it (trying to predict the future is a huge no-no, for instance—with or without Tarot—but that’s not what everyone does with it, or even considering it supernatural, for that matter), and so on).
Sure. I know not everyone uses Tarot to predict the future and I'm not necessarily saying it's 'supernatural' either. But I still think it's best to steer clear of these things.
Sure. I know not everyone uses Tarot to predict the future and I'm not necessarily saying it's 'supernatural' either. But I still think it's best to steer clear of these things.
Sure. I know not everyone uses Tarot to predict the future and I'm not necessarily saying it's 'supernatural' either. But I still think it's best to steer clear of these things.
I live in a "woo woo" town and steering clear of such things is exactly what we do.
Years ago in a course on phenomenology I learned of Saliba's "detached within" approach to studying religions. My lack of mystical sensibility prevents me from doing even that.
@Gamma Gamaliel horoscopes and astrology in general were historically just part of the calendar in medieval Europe - not seen as being in any way incompatible with Christianity but just a part of the natural world. Even Cranmer included Lammas as a church feast day in the BCP, something which now many anti-occult Christians would find scandalous. Many things considered to be "occult" by Christians now are just traditions that used to be part of daily life. Many medieval prayer books are decorated with astrological symbols. Tarot cards were just playing cards and often used for normal card games - likewise you can use playing cards instead of a Tarot deck.
@ChastMastr ouija boards are literally board games witth the copyright owned by Parker Games - you may as well avoid Monopoly. They were invented as a form of self-analysis when psychoanalysis became popular and had zero occult or mystical connotations. It only gained such connotations when people used them for Spiritualism purposes during/after WW1.
<snip>Even Cranmer included Lammas as a church feast day in the BCP, something which now many anti-occult Christians would find scandalous.
From Wikipedia
While Lammas is traditionally a Christian holy day, some neopagans have adopted the name and date for one of their harvest festivals in their Wheel of the Year. It is also the same date as the Gaelic harvest festival Lughnasadh.
I can see why it might have become scandalous, but it has a long history as part of the agricultural liturgical calendar. As I expect you’re aware the name comes from the Old English hlafmæsse meaning "loaf mass"
@ChastMastr ouija boards are literally board games witth the copyright owned by Parker Games - you may as well avoid Monopoly. They were invented as a form of self-analysis when psychoanalysis became popular and had zero occult or mystical connotations. It only gained such connotations when people used them for Spiritualism purposes during/after WW1.
I don't think this is correct, the patent dates back to the 1900s. The use of 'talking boards' was popularised by the spiritualist movement after the American Civil War and thus predates the patent (as does the name 'Ouija')
I'm fairly sure that Ouija boards are widely considered to have originated from Spiritualists in the 1890s and popularised by famous people such as Conan Doyle. I don't see that there's evidence people only started using them for spiritualism after WW1.
According to this article, there was acceptance of Spiritualism and ouija in society before the 1920s but that was the period when the scare stories proliferated (and presumably religious organisations started condemning it)
@Gamma Gamaliel As this thread shows mysticism means different things to different people. While the King James Bible has been superceded by better translations, I still love its prose and its very literal translation of the OT. Isaiah 26.3 reads, " Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee." For me, that's mysticism in a nutshell. Not voices, or visions or practices. While I hate the idea of techniques or practices applied to the spiritual life, many mystics over the centuries, have tried to explain how they arrived at where they were and certain others among us may find their writings helpful. I believe that keeping ourselves stayed on the presence of God is the most important thing we can do in our fallen world.
As regards to ouija boards. I would say stay away from them at all costs! Way back in 1970, when I was sixth former at school, a group of us formed an occult study group. The ouija board was one of our main practices. I started having panic attacks, the only time in my life I ever had that experience. I had a dream in which I was walking along a dark road. I saw an old man with white hair and a white beard walking towards me. When he got close he said, " Beware of the devil." Make of that what you will, but I severed contact with the group immediately.
It feels like a divide is being made in some of the comments between superstition and mysticism when it appears to me that it is the same thing.
Speaking to the dead and predicting the future can be bad or good (mystical or superstitious) depending on who is talking.
I'd understand if nobody wants to join me to discuss this thought!
Of course they appear to you as the same thing. If you are coming at any of this from a non-faith perspective then it's all going to look like mumbo-jumbo.
I attended a midweek Divine Liturgy this morning. If you'd have been there you would have seen me kiss icons, light candles, make the sign of the cross whenever the Trinity was invoked, make a prostration at the consecration of the 'Holy Gifts' and generally act in a way you might consider 'superstitious'.
Heck, someone from a different Christian tradition from my own might consider it superstitious too.
As @pablito1954 and others here have said, there are widely different understandings of the term 'mystical' across the Christian spectrum, let alone the religious world more widely.
That's only to be expected.
I'm not asking anyone else to accept my understanding of it any more than my fellow Shipmates are asking me to share theirs.
As it happens, I find myself very much in agreement on points raised by posters from different traditions than my own and for whom the term might be more uncomfortable or 'loaded' than it is in my own circles.
Even within particular Traditions or traditions there are sliding scales as to what might be considered 'superstitious' or otherwise.
I find many Romanian Orthodox highly superstitious for instance.
At any rate ... on the astrology and horoscopes thing, yes, both were perfectly acceptable in Christian circles in medieval times. The Vatican had an astrology department I think.
As for Spiritualism, yes it started off in the USA after the Civil War, in highly Calvinistic New England ironically perhaps.
Was it filling a vacuum 🤔;)?
And yes things like séances and ouija boards and so forth were around before WW1. It's been argued, though, that the unprecedented death-toll of that conflict sparked a deeper interest in these things. It's often claimed that 'prayers for the dead' within Anglicanism became more acceptable and popular during the 1920s for a similar reason.
I suspect it may have been a factor but the 1920s also saw the high-water mark of the Anglo-Catholic movement within the Anglican Communion so there were a range of influences involved.
FWIW I like Richard Rohr's definition of 'mysticism' which was posted upthread and I notice @Nick Tamen liked it too. He's also agreed that his own Reformed tradition can be more 'mystical' (by this definition) than is often appreciated.
I also like @pablito1954's deployment of Isaiah 26:3 and I'm sure that's something that would be endorsed across the spectrum from Quakers to Anglo-Catholics and many others besides.
In answer to the question "What does the mystic see?"
Caroline Spurgeon gave the answer: "Unity underlies diversity."
Various posts above caused me to think of apprehensions of mysticism in Victorian times, and of its relationship with poetry. On the Victorian Web, Dick Sullivan wrote:
Nobody thinks of the English as mystic; the Victorian English least of all. Yet in 1913 a very Victorian Englishwoman wrote a book in which she argues that nearly twenty of the nineteenth century's writers were mystics to one degree or another. In Mysticism and English Literature [sic], which has recently been reprinted once again, Caroline Spurgeon (1869-1942) also asks: "what does the mystic see?" Her answer, in three words, is the best you're ever likely to come across: "Unity underlies diversity." That's all. Joy, serenity, a sense of cosmic harmony and benevolence, are side effects; anything else is an intellectual add-on. Via Wordsworth, she also describes the mechanism by which mystics see what they do.
...
Three different periods have been hot-spots of English mysticism: the thirteenth-fourteenth, the seventeenth, and the nineteenth centuries. Instead of following this chronology, Spurgeon uses four headings: the mysticism of (1) love/beauty, (2) nature, (3) philosophy, (4) religious devotion.
While religious devotion is clearly the focus of this thread, it seems likely that the boundaries between these categories are porous and that attitudes of Victorian and earlier times continue to influence English (and English-speaking) people today.
As reviewed, Caroline Spurgeon considers a number of authors and works already mentioned on this thread, illustrated with brief excerpts of their poetry. (It isn't a thesis.) It turns out these are somewhat indifferently transcribed from the book itself, which can be found on Project Gutenberg. For example, of Emile Brontë's mystical poetry:
In The Prisoner, the speaker, a woman, is "confined in triple walls," yet in spite of bolts and bars and dungeon gloom she holds within herself an inextinguishable joy and unmeasured freedom brought to her every night by a "messenger."
He comes with western winds, with evening's wandering airs,
With that clear dusk of heaven that brings the thickest stars.
Winds take a pensive tone, and stars a tender fire,
And visions rise, and change, that kill me with desire.
…
But, first, a hush of peace—a soundless calm descends;
The struggle of distress, and fierce impatience ends;
Mute music soothes my breast—unuttered harmony,
That I could never dream, till Earth was lost to me.
Then dawns the Invisible; the Unseen its truth reveals;
My outward sense is gone, my inward essence feels:
Its wings are almost free—its home, its harbour found,
Measuring the gulf, it stoops and dares the final bound.
Oh! dreadful is the check—intense the agony—
When the ear begins to hear, and the eye begins to see;
When the pulse begins to throb, the brain to think again;
The soul to feel the flesh, and the flesh to feel the chain.
This is the description—always unmistakable—of the supreme mystic experience, the joy of the outward flight, the pain of the return, and it could only have been written by one who in some measure had knowledge of it. This, together with the exquisite little poem The Visionary, which describes a similar experience, and The Philosopher, stand apart as expressions of spiritual vision, and are among the most perfect mystic poems in English.
@ChastMastr ouija boards are literally board games witth the copyright owned by Parker Games - you may as well avoid Monopoly. They were invented as a form of self-analysis when psychoanalysis became popular and had zero occult or mystical connotations. It only gained such connotations when people used them for Spiritualism purposes during/after WW1.
I don't think this is correct, the patent dates back to the 1900s. The use of 'talking boards' was popularised by the spiritualist movement after the American Civil War and thus predates the patent (as does the name 'Ouija')
According to Wikipedia
Modern Spiritualism is said to date from practices and lectures of the Fox sisters in New York State in 1848.
Planchettes or ouija boards date from that time rising to a heyday in the 1860s.
@ChastMastr ouija boards are literally board games witth the copyright owned by Parker Games - you may as well avoid Monopoly. They were invented as a form of self-analysis when psychoanalysis became popular and had zero occult or mystical connotations. It only gained such connotations when people used them for Spiritualism purposes during/after WW1.
I don't think this is correct, the patent dates back to the 1900s. The use of 'talking boards' was popularised by the spiritualist movement after the American Civil War and thus predates the patent (as does the name 'Ouija')
According to Wikipedia
Modern Spiritualism is said to date from practices and lectures of the Fox sisters in New York State in 1848.
Planchettes or ouija boards date from that time rising to a heyday in the 1860s.
That describes the origins of 'modern spiritualism', not Ouija boards . The Fox Sisters 'act' centred around making rapping and clicking sounds.
Planchettes were first used in the 1850s in Europe - you can probably make a case that something similar was used in ancient China.
In any case, the use of both predates Charles Kennard's 'invention' to which Pomona made reference.
That's great. I'd not come across Caroline Spurgeon or that quote before. I'll definitely make a note of it.
I feel it was worth starting this thread for that post alone, although there are other excellent posts and contributions here too of course.
It is inevitable that our religious 'affections' and practices are porous and absorb influences from whatever our milieu happens to be.
I sometimes think that aspects of Anglo-Catholicism owe as much to Sir Walter Scott and Victorian medivalism as they do to ecclesiology and anything else.
The charismatic movement absorbed elements of 1960s counter-culture and the Folk Revival.
None of these things happen in a vacuum. Whether it's Byzantium or Billericay our surroundings are going to help shape our spirituality.
@ChastMastr ouija boards are literally board games witth the copyright owned by Parker Games - you may as well avoid Monopoly. They were invented as a form of self-analysis when psychoanalysis became popular and had zero occult or mystical connotations. It only gained such connotations when people used them for Spiritualism purposes during/after WW1.
I don't think this is correct, the patent dates back to the 1900s. The use of 'talking boards' was popularised by the spiritualist movement after the American Civil War and thus predates the patent (as does the name 'Ouija')
According to Wikipedia
Modern Spiritualism is said to date from practices and lectures of the Fox sisters in New York State in 1848.
Planchettes or ouija boards date from that time rising to a heyday in the 1860s.
That describes the origins of 'modern spiritualism', not Ouija boards . The Fox Sisters 'act' centred around making rapping and clicking sounds.
Planchettes were first used in the 1850s in Europe.
One of the first mentions of the automatic writing method used in the Ouija board is found in China around 1100 AD, in historical documents of the Song dynasty. The method was known as fuji “planchette writing.” The use of planchette writing as an ostensible means of necromancy and communion with the spirit-world continued, and, albeit under special rituals and supervisions, was a central practice of the Quanzhen School, until it was forbidden by the Qing dynasty.
To be honest, it would never occur to me to take an Ouija board any more seriously than I’d take a Magic 8-Ball. I’ve never viewed it as anything other than a toy intended solely for entertainment. We had an Ouija board when I was a kid; it was kept with all the other board games. Frankly, I always found it very boring.
AIUI the ouija board is basically a predefined surface on which a planchette is used. Planchettes became popular in Europe in the early 1850s, transferring to America towards the end of the decade.
I’ve always taken mysticism to mean any approach to spirituality that prioritizes direct personal experience over logical and verbal formulations, or authority.
Yes, and it's interesting that many mystics in a range of Christian traditions - I can't speak for non-Christian ones - have had 'issues' with authority.
Or perhaps 'authority' has had issues with them.
That doesn't mean we should blithely reject authority in the interests of 'direct experience' as it were, but neither does it mean we should blithely and blindly accept it either.
Yes, and it's interesting that many mystics in a range of Christian traditions - I can't speak for non-Christian ones - have had 'issues' with authority.
Or perhaps 'authority' has had issues with them.
That doesn't mean we should blithely reject authority in the interests of 'direct experience' as it were, but neither does it mean we should blithely and blindly accept it either.
In my mystical and sometimes magical journey through Christianity, external authority simply assumes second position in my hierarchy of filters through which I organize the information that comes to me.
My first filter is in my solar plexus. This is not an idle "it FEELS right/wrong" kind of thing but a set of subtle but specific physiological signals that would be easy to ignore or even be totally unaware of if I didn't check for them. I trained myself early in life to recognize these signals and I am completely satisfied with the kind of spiritual life they have led me in the direction of.
External authority is the filter that I refer to when and if my physiology doesn't prompt me one way or the other. External authority must pass the "does it fit" test. My experience of Christianity is like an enormous jigsaw puzzle with many piles of similar looking tiles waiting to be joined to the central picture that is being fleshed out as my life reveals my faith to me. If the authority doesn't fit the picture it stays in its pile until it does.
It's not that I disregard authority, it's that I reserve judgment about it. I never dismiss it outright I simply keep it in the "need more information" pile.
I would tend to use the the word mystic in a none Christian sense. I know that is not the case for all and in Christian history but it feels right to me
Thanks, @A Feminine Force - the word I'd use for what you describe as your first filter is discernment.
Thinking about the simile of your experience of Christianity: my experience is that the image changes radically, depending on the position from which I look at it. What looks like a picture from one angle looks like a jumble of unconnected pieces from another.
I would tend to use the the word mystic in a none Christian sense. I know that is not the case for all and in Christian history but it feels right to me
There's an Old Testament quote for this. You'll know it, I'm sure. The one about everyone doing what was right in their own eyes ... 😉
More seriously, and in response to @A Feminine Force also, these are areas where we all have to tread carefully. Pitfalls all round.
We have to respect our own 'nous' and integrity and yes, as @pease says, individual discernment does come into it. Not everything is decided by committee as it were.
I do understand what you are saying @Hugal and sometimes wish we had a different term than 'mysticism' for what we are talking about on this thread because it conjures up all manner of connotations and associations.
I'll be honest, much of what @A Feminine Force has described over the years as part of their 'mystical and sometimes magical journey through Christianity' doesn't sit comfortably with me. Reincarnation and so forth.
So what do we do about that? Whose discernment do we trust or go with? @A Feminine Force's or mine?
Or do we need some kind of external authority be it a Papal Magisterium, the Orthodox 'conciliarity' thing, a sola scriptura and confessional approach?
Or something else entirely?
Are each of us our own Pope?
I'm thinking aloud here and I do certainly allow room for the 'unknown' as it were and am aware that not everything is going to have a cut-and-dried neatly sewn up answer wherever we stand on these issues.
But to all practical intents and purposes we need some 'systems and measure of discernment that doesn't simply depend on how we 'feel' at any given time.
So what do we do about that? Whose discernment do we trust or go with? @A Feminine Force's or mine?
My answer to that is simple. You go with your own.
We don't have to agree with one another about the mechanics of reality and the methods of our salvation in order to love one another and do unto each other as we would others do unto us.
One of the the things I love about being a Baptist is the belief that we are all made by God in such a way as to be able to properly discern for ourselves His presence in the Word and in the World.
God wants to be perceived, known, and appreciated by us, and has properly equipped us to do so. I believe one of the purest expressions of this desire is expressed in the Song of Songs. And so one of the ways we can do that is to see, know and appreciate each other and the Creation because you never know Whose face you are going to see under that hoodie or behind that welder's or dental hygienist's mask.
Sure, and I have a lot of respect for the Baptist way of doing things even though I'm obviously more sacramental these days.
I still think the Baptist notion of 'soul-competence' has merit, although I'd obviously place an emphasis on ecclesial authority beyond that of the individual congregation.
That doesn't mean that I don't 'see, know and appreciate' those who see things differently to me.
One of the reasons I like these boards is due to the range of views we can encounter here, although I don't think the range is as wide as it once was.
I s'pose I am wary of the Book of Judges thing about everyone doing what was right in their own eyes, but that doesn't mean I want to see a dull uniformity either.
I s'pose I am wary of the Book of Judges thing about everyone doing what was right in their own eyes, but that doesn't mean I want to see a dull uniformity either.
I agree. Let me see if I can describe the sensation.
It's not about "if it feels good it must be right". It's more like "it feels right only if it's good".
I'll be honest, much of what @A Feminine Force has described over the years as part of their 'mystical and sometimes magical journey through Christianity' doesn't sit comfortably with me. Reincarnation and so forth.
So what do we do about that? Whose discernment do we trust or go with? @A Feminine Force's or mine?
Or do we need some kind of external authority be it a Papal Magisterium, the Orthodox 'conciliarity' thing, a sola scriptura and confessional approach?
Or something else entirely?
To riff on what I think some of your folk say, is it really anything more than “That is how @A Feminine Force sees what’s on her plate, and that’s how @Gamma Gamaliel sees what’s in his plate, but my responsibility is only on my plate.”?
Go to your closet, and pray to your father. How very corporate.
One of the ten lepers returns to thank Christ, and is the one whose faith has made him whole. Again, not seeing the privileging of the corporate, especially since he breaks off from a journey to the temple.
Experience of God is essentially individual, because God's throne is the human heart. It is nourished and balanced by word and sacrament. Both can come from their religiously endorsed sources, but the holy spirit is a wild creature, and capable of speaking or otherwise revealing herself from anywhere.
Discernment is central, and again is fundamentally individual, but with strong collective underpinning.
Even collective discernment works because individuals invest in it, and indeed work through it. By the same token, collective egos are still egos.
I have long felt that there are three fundamental "moods" among the religious/spiritual, corresponding to the three persons of the trinity - there's the father-focussed, looking always for an authority under and in front of them, be it the church, the biblical texts, or an equivalent. There's the son-focussed, who focus everything in relationship, drawing their assurance and authority from a beloved other. There's the spirit-focussed, looking into themselves and looking around them with a discerning, or would-be discerning, eye. Even companionship comes, fundamentally from within.
I would put myself in the latter group, though with some of the second and an element of the first. I am also a sacramentalist, because I find the story told by the actions and physical experience associated with the sacraments instinctively compelling.
Go to your closet, and pray to your father. How very corporate.
One of the ten lepers returns to thank Christ, and is the one whose faith has made him whole. Again, not seeing the privileging of the corporate, especially since he breaks off from a journey to the temple.
Experience of God is essentially individual, because God's throne is the human heart. It is nourished and balanced by word and sacrament. Both can come from their religiously endorsed sources, but the holy spirit is a wild creature, and capable of speaking or otherwise revealing herself from anywhere.
Discernment is central, and again is fundamentally individual, but with strong collective underpinning.
Even collective discernment works because individuals invest in it, and indeed work through it. By the same token, collective egos are still egos.
I have long felt that there are three fundamental "moods" among the religious/spiritual, corresponding to the three persons of the trinity - there's the father-focussed, looking always for an authority under and in front of them, be it the church, the biblical texts, or an equivalent. There's the son-focussed, who focus everything in relationship, drawing their assurance and authority from a beloved other. There's the spirit-focussed, looking into themselves and looking around them with a discerning, or would-be discerning, eye. Even companionship comes, fundamentally from within. This is the approach I would call mysticism. It's a kind of spiritual anarchy, but with a strong element of discernment.
I would put myself in the latter group, though with some of the second and an element of the first. I am also a sacramentalist, because I find the story of God's unconditional love for creation told by the actions and physical experiences associated with the sacraments instinctively compelling and spiritually highly nourishing. Sometimes it feels like an unfortunate addiction, but it is stubbornly part of me.
'Our Father, which art in heaven ...' very corporate.
'Go show yourself to the priests,' very corporate.
'You/we (plural) are the Body of Christ ...'
Need I go on?
Why dichotomise?
Why not have the individual and the corporate as a both/and thing and hold them in tension at times if necessary?
@Nick Tamen the 'keep your eyes on your own plate thing' refers to praxis of course. It's about not judging other people's behaviour rather than assessing or discussing their theology. Surely we can debate these things respectfully?
Of course @A Feminine Force can believe whatever she wishes. We can agree or disagree as to whether her claims - if I understand her correctly - to have had several incarnations is compatible or otherwise with received small o orthodox creedal Christianity or scripture / tradition / Tradition without sitting in judgement on her as a person.
Whether we agree or not we can't prove it one way or another, unless we wake up dead and find we're being reincarnated as someone else.
Heck, we may all of us wake up dead and find ourselves in oblivion and that our faith had no substance after all.
I'm not out to decry or denounce whatever experiences A Feminine Force may or may not have had or whether they were what she believes them to have been but if it is all down to individual judgement then I could come on here claiming to believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster and nobody could question or challenge that belief - should they be inclined to do so - by reference to any schema be it sola scriptura, Church Tradition or whatever else.
I hasten to add that whilst I confess myself puzzled by some of A Feminine Force's posts - as they don't 'fit' with small o or Big O orthodox Christian belief as I understand it, I enjoy reading her posts and am glad she feels she can share these things with the rest of us.
I daresay other Shipmates find my posts odd at times and wonder how I can believe some of the things I write on these boards.
I'm not trying to claim that everything must be corporate. I'm just saying that the idea that Jesus Christ set out to found a religion which looks anything like Christianity in its current forms, and/or in many of its expressions, is far from proven, and that the gospel can manifest itself in many lived forms now, including some which are surprising to many.
Dear friends and @Gamma Gamaliel thank you for your forbearance. I have always felt safe in this forum and I regard this place as my church family away from my home congregation.
Much love to you all and the Ship we sail together in.
I'm not trying to claim that everything must be corporate. I'm just saying that the idea that Jesus Christ set out to found a religion which looks anything like Christianity in its current forms, and/or in many of its expressions, is far from proven, and that the gospel can manifest itself in many lived forms now, including some which are surprising to many.
Somehow, I managed to say the opposite of what I meant in my first sentence. I meant something like "I'm not saying that everything must be entirely personally constructed and discerned by each person individually." Then I did manage to say something like what I mean.
'@Nick Tamen the 'keep your eyes on your own plate thing' refers to praxis of course. It's about not judging other people's behaviour rather than assessing or discussing their theology. Surely we can debate these things respectfully?
Sure, but does that always mean we should. It does seem that there’s an element of “judge not lest ye be judged” sort of thing going on. I mean, it’s likely unavoidable that we’re going to say at times “hmmmm, that’s not what I believe.” But I guess I’m more interested in hearing why someone believes differently from me than I am in telling them I think they’re wrong.
And yes, I know the “plate” saying refers to praxis. That’s why I said it was a “riff” on it. I do think there are some parallels that can be drawn.
As for corporate vs individual discernment, surely there is a place for both. Some things we must each discern for ourselves. (Though personally, I appreciate the assistance of some trusted friends in personal discernment.) And some things we must discern as communities.
Of course and I don't think I'm saying anything very different, although I am certainly ratcheting the corporate aspect up a few degrees further than my Protestant brothers and sisters might.
I'm not saying that everything should be 'corporate' any more than @ThunderBunk is saying that everything should be individualised to the extent that we don't care about anyone else.
I thank @A Feminine Force for her forbearance with me, and others like me. She clearly cares about other people and I wish I could consistently do the same.
I was in two minds whether to mention disagreements I might have with A Feminine Force over mystical matters, partly because I didn't want to cause offence and partly because Big O Orthodox people like me - particularly converts - can be pains in the arse and act as theology or doctrinal police when the best course of action would be to keep shtum.
On balance, rightly or wrongly, I took that risk partly because A Feminine Force would know darn well that I wouldn't share all her views on mysticism or ecclesiology and partly because I felt she would be robust enough to respond graciously and not take offence.
As it turned out, she responded more graciously than I deserved.
There is a Christlikeness in that which transcends any temporary or temporal disagreements we might have.
We have more in common than those things which keep us apart.
To borrow some of ThunderBunk's language (as it resonates with me):
@Gamma Gamaliel, it seems that you prefer to privilege the corporate. But, to echo Nick Tamen, what I'd like to know is why.
My personal experience is that the Holy Spirit does not privilege the corporate. The Holy Spirit is indeed a wild creature. And at times they inspire a kind of spiritual anarchy. However, they are always concerned with building up the individual, and with building up the body. And both of these require discernment.
'My personalexperience is that the Holy Spirit does not privilege the corporate.
Whereas I would say, 'Our personal experience...'
It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about us.
What if I said, 'My personal experience is that the Holy Spirit privileges the corporate.'
Would my 'personal experience' trump your 'personal experience' or your 'personal experience' trump mine?
Who decides?
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that nobody has personal experiences but only corporate ones, still less than we should all be guided by 'group-think'.
What saith the scriptures?
'The manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.'
If that's not corporate I don't know what is.
The late Fr John Zizoulas wrote a book called Being as Communion. I didn't understand it all, it's a dense read.
But the gist of it is that we find ourselves and one another in the context of communion and fellowship.
We don't lose our individual integrity by being part of a family or a church or a squash club or any other group - unless it is a controlling or cultish one.
'It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.'
I don't know why anything I'm saying should sound so puzzling or off-putting to people.
I'm only saying what we find in scripture and Tradition - whether small t or Big T.
The short answer to your question @pease is that I'm saying these things because that's what I understand the Holy Scriptures and the broad thrust of the Christian tradition in its various forms to teach us.
Why are there icons in Orthodox churches? Partly to remind us that we are part of a wider community, those who are being redeemed in this life as it were and those who are in the Church Triumphant in Heaven.
This isn't rocket science. It's basic Christian teaching and can be found across the entire Christian spectrum, with differing layers of emphasis of course.
Why dichotomise?
Nobody is saying that God will only speak to people or deal with them solely in a corporate context.
'The wind bloweth where it listeth ..."
I keep saying that and nobody believes me.
Instead they go off on one as if I'm denying the validity of any personal experience they may or may not have had or questioning their personal integrity.
I am doing no such thing.
Yes, it's obvious that Orthodoxy is going to take a less individualised approach than Protestantism does. It comes with the territory and it's the ecclesial context I operate within.
I'm not saying that all Protestants are rampant illuminists who make themselves their own Pope and don't give a monkey's about anyone else. Far from it.
Still less am I saying that individually or collectively the Orthodox are paragons of corporate virtue.
I do think, though, that some forms of Protestantism can veer off into overly subjective forms of spirituality - 'my personal Saviour...' 'your own personal Jesus' as it were.
Equally, of course, more 'corporate' traditions or Traditions can bind themselves into a straitjacket of collective entropy.
I don't know how I can make my comments clearer. Whatever I say on this matter seems to elicit a reaction which is very different from what I intend.
All I am saying is that we shouldn't dichotomise the individual and the collective to the extent that we often do in late or post-modernity.
Collective decision is legitimated by the pooling of individual autonomy. It has no power, no legitimacy beyond that. Your denomination has the capacity to influence your life because you give it that capacity. It has nothing of itself, in your life at least.
In some society, churches have political power, meaning that it is harder to resist. But in ours, as it is now, no church has significant power unless you grant it.
This is not the same as influence - the Church of England in particular has a certain, declining, influence in England, and the wider UK - but in terms of power, that is granted per person, when it comes to personal beliefs and decisions.
Thanks, Gamma Gamaliel. I'm getting the sense that it's the individualism and dichotomising that you're not comfortable with. I'm not greatly surprised that you get a different reaction from the one you expect.
Keeping saying something and expecting a different response reminds me of a well-known saying about the quantum world.
Yes, it's obvious that Orthodoxy is going to take a less individualised approach than Protestantism does. It comes with the territory and it's the ecclesial context I operate within.
My understanding is that it's the ecclesial context you have chosen to operate in, being a personal, freely-made choice. Which seems a fairly late-modern, individualistic thing for you to have done.
I don't know how I can make my comments clearer. Whatever I say on this matter seems to elicit a reaction which is very different from what I intend.
All I am saying is that we shouldn't dichotomise the individual and the collective to the extent that we often do in late or post-modernity.
What you're doing, over and over, is telling us that our notion of an appropriate balance between the individual and the collective is wrong. And, as already pointed out, continuing to expect a response other than the one you're getting.
Other cultures don't.
For all its many faults, the culture we inhabit is one in which we can try a different approach.
Sorry to double-post but I s'pose what I'm saying is that it's a both/and thing.
It seems that "both/and" is (predominantly Catholic) shorthand for saying that the Catholic mindset is less individualistic and less dichotomising than the "either/or" of Protestantism.
Ok. Time to start unpacking things a bit, perhaps.
And yes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is all what Einstein said it was.
But to borrow a well-known Protestant phrase, 'Here I stand ...'. 😉 You know the rest.
Ok. Where to start?
Of course choosing one's religious affiliation is a fairly modern (or post-modern) thing to do and yes, on the level of making a personal choice it's individualistic.
People couldn't make those kinds of decisions quite so easily in the past and it could still be quite difficult changing from a default Orthodox position to a Protestant one, say, in some majority Orthodox countries even though they may ostensibly have freedom of religion in their political constitutions.
Yes, I've chosen to become Orthodox. I could have chosen to become Quaker or URC or RC or ...
Just as you and @ThunderBunk have chosen to remain Anglican or whatever church affiliation you happen to have. We are all free agents.
As I see it, I'm not trying to tell you that what you consider to be 'an appropriate balance between the individual and collective is wrong.'
Rather the boot was on the other foot. You @Pease were telling me that I'd got it out of whack, that I was prioritising the collective over the individual and that 'in your personal experience' things were the other way round to what you understood me to be saying and that the Holy Spirit privileges the individual over the collective.
Which wasn't what I was saying at all. What I was saying was that there should be an appropriate balance between the individual and the collective.
If we claim that our 'personal experience' trumps everything else then we are setting ourselves up as the arbiter and may run the risk of becoming overly subjective.
Yes, the Christian faith is a personal faith, but it's one that is lived out and expressed in community and in conjunction with other people.
'No man is an island entire of itself ...
@ThunderBunk of course any group or organisation, church or denomination is only going to have as much influence over me as I voluntarily allow it. I am perfectly at liberty to attend the Liturgy tomorrow or not attend it if I decide to go somewhere else instead. Nobody is going to come knocking at my door if I don't turn up.
The same applies where you are.
Meanwhile, @Pease, I don't see the 'both/and' thing as being predominantly Catholic (or Orthodox) but something that is common to all forms of historic creedal Christianity.
Heck, if we believe that Christ is fully God and fully human at one and the same time according to the historic Creeds then that's a both/and thing irrespective of whether we are RC, Protestant or Orthodox.
That said, I do think that some - but by no means all - sections of particularly conservative Protestantism do have a tendency to be somewhat dualistic and either/or.
Comments
Just as a side note, not all of us here would agree that everything in that category would necessarily be “demonic.”
Carry on…
Nor Tarot and so on.
Not necessarily because I think we'd get heeby-geeby-ed by a demon but because scripture and Tradition has good reason not to recommend them or to proscribe such things.
The only form of 'mysticism' I'm interested in is the kind @pablito1954 describes - 'practical Christian mysticism' by which we draw closer to Christ.
I'm not saying that Buddhist or other mystical practices don't have value, but they are different and should be evaluated under their own terms.
But anything that might be 'occult' in the sense that pablito1954 uses the term should be avoided at all costs in my view.
It's not that I think that Mrs Prendergast of 42 Acacia Avenue is going to get demon-possessed by consulting her horoscope, but I don't think it's going to do her any good either.
Again, I s'pose we must define our terms but if by 'occult' you mean esoteric knowledge that derives from sources outside of Christ, then count me out. Big no-no.
Indeed, while many refer to the Reformed understanding as “Spiritual Presence” and Calvin and used the term “True Presence,” John Williamson Nevin entitled in 1846 book on the Reformed understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Mystical Presence: a Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
I like that, too, and it prompted me to go back and find this that Frederick Buechner said about mysticism: Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC (Harper & Row, 1973).
That, in turn, reminded me of one of my favorite bits of poetry, from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Aurora Lee:
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round and pluck blackberries.
Oh, whether any given practice or experience or notion is good, bad, wise or unwise, etc., I’m just saying that not all of us think that all of those things are specifically demonic. Personally I make distinctions within that whole general region (for instance, I believe in avoiding Ouija at all costs, but with Tarot, I think it depends on what you’re trying to do with it (trying to predict the future is a huge no-no, for instance—with or without Tarot—but that’s not what everyone does with it, or even considering it supernatural, for that matter), and so on).
I understand that.
I live in a "woo woo" town and steering clear of such things is exactly what we do.
Years ago in a course on phenomenology I learned of Saliba's "detached within" approach to studying religions. My lack of mystical sensibility prevents me from doing even that.
Speaking to the dead and predicting the future can be bad or good (mystical or superstitious) depending on who is talking.
I'd understand if nobody wants to join me to discuss this thought!
@ChastMastr ouija boards are literally board games witth the copyright owned by Parker Games - you may as well avoid Monopoly. They were invented as a form of self-analysis when psychoanalysis became popular and had zero occult or mystical connotations. It only gained such connotations when people used them for Spiritualism purposes during/after WW1.
I don't think this is correct, the patent dates back to the 1900s. The use of 'talking boards' was popularised by the spiritualist movement after the American Civil War and thus predates the patent (as does the name 'Ouija')
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-ouija-board-cant-connect-us-to-paranormal-forces-but-it-can-tell-us-a-lot-about-psychology-grief-and-uncertainty-5860627/
As regards to ouija boards. I would say stay away from them at all costs! Way back in 1970, when I was sixth former at school, a group of us formed an occult study group. The ouija board was one of our main practices. I started having panic attacks, the only time in my life I ever had that experience. I had a dream in which I was walking along a dark road. I saw an old man with white hair and a white beard walking towards me. When he got close he said, " Beware of the devil." Make of that what you will, but I severed contact with the group immediately.
Of course they appear to you as the same thing. If you are coming at any of this from a non-faith perspective then it's all going to look like mumbo-jumbo.
I attended a midweek Divine Liturgy this morning. If you'd have been there you would have seen me kiss icons, light candles, make the sign of the cross whenever the Trinity was invoked, make a prostration at the consecration of the 'Holy Gifts' and generally act in a way you might consider 'superstitious'.
Heck, someone from a different Christian tradition from my own might consider it superstitious too.
As @pablito1954 and others here have said, there are widely different understandings of the term 'mystical' across the Christian spectrum, let alone the religious world more widely.
That's only to be expected.
I'm not asking anyone else to accept my understanding of it any more than my fellow Shipmates are asking me to share theirs.
As it happens, I find myself very much in agreement on points raised by posters from different traditions than my own and for whom the term might be more uncomfortable or 'loaded' than it is in my own circles.
Even within particular Traditions or traditions there are sliding scales as to what might be considered 'superstitious' or otherwise.
I find many Romanian Orthodox highly superstitious for instance.
At any rate ... on the astrology and horoscopes thing, yes, both were perfectly acceptable in Christian circles in medieval times. The Vatican had an astrology department I think.
As for Spiritualism, yes it started off in the USA after the Civil War, in highly Calvinistic New England ironically perhaps.
Was it filling a vacuum 🤔;)?
And yes things like séances and ouija boards and so forth were around before WW1. It's been argued, though, that the unprecedented death-toll of that conflict sparked a deeper interest in these things. It's often claimed that 'prayers for the dead' within Anglicanism became more acceptable and popular during the 1920s for a similar reason.
I suspect it may have been a factor but the 1920s also saw the high-water mark of the Anglo-Catholic movement within the Anglican Communion so there were a range of influences involved.
FWIW I like Richard Rohr's definition of 'mysticism' which was posted upthread and I notice @Nick Tamen liked it too. He's also agreed that his own Reformed tradition can be more 'mystical' (by this definition) than is often appreciated.
I also like @pablito1954's deployment of Isaiah 26:3 and I'm sure that's something that would be endorsed across the spectrum from Quakers to Anglo-Catholics and many others besides.
Caroline Spurgeon gave the answer: "Unity underlies diversity."
Various posts above caused me to think of apprehensions of mysticism in Victorian times, and of its relationship with poetry. On the Victorian Web, Dick Sullivan wrote: While religious devotion is clearly the focus of this thread, it seems likely that the boundaries between these categories are porous and that attitudes of Victorian and earlier times continue to influence English (and English-speaking) people today.
As reviewed, Caroline Spurgeon considers a number of authors and works already mentioned on this thread, illustrated with brief excerpts of their poetry. (It isn't a thesis.) It turns out these are somewhat indifferently transcribed from the book itself, which can be found on Project Gutenberg. For example, of Emile Brontë's mystical poetry:
That describes the origins of 'modern spiritualism', not Ouija boards . The Fox Sisters 'act' centred around making rapping and clicking sounds.
Planchettes were first used in the 1850s in Europe - you can probably make a case that something similar was used in ancient China.
In any case, the use of both predates Charles Kennard's 'invention' to which Pomona made reference.
That's great. I'd not come across Caroline Spurgeon or that quote before. I'll definitely make a note of it.
I feel it was worth starting this thread for that post alone, although there are other excellent posts and contributions here too of course.
It is inevitable that our religious 'affections' and practices are porous and absorb influences from whatever our milieu happens to be.
I sometimes think that aspects of Anglo-Catholicism owe as much to Sir Walter Scott and Victorian medivalism as they do to ecclesiology and anything else.
The charismatic movement absorbed elements of 1960s counter-culture and the Folk Revival.
None of these things happen in a vacuum. Whether it's Byzantium or Billericay our surroundings are going to help shape our spirituality.
To be honest, it would never occur to me to take an Ouija board any more seriously than I’d take a Magic 8-Ball. I’ve never viewed it as anything other than a toy intended solely for entertainment. We had an Ouija board when I was a kid; it was kept with all the other board games. Frankly, I always found it very boring.
That's a later innovation I think, the original planchettes had a small aperture that would hold a pen, and would be used for automatic writing.
Or perhaps 'authority' has had issues with them.
That doesn't mean we should blithely reject authority in the interests of 'direct experience' as it were, but neither does it mean we should blithely and blindly accept it either.
In my mystical and sometimes magical journey through Christianity, external authority simply assumes second position in my hierarchy of filters through which I organize the information that comes to me.
My first filter is in my solar plexus. This is not an idle "it FEELS right/wrong" kind of thing but a set of subtle but specific physiological signals that would be easy to ignore or even be totally unaware of if I didn't check for them. I trained myself early in life to recognize these signals and I am completely satisfied with the kind of spiritual life they have led me in the direction of.
External authority is the filter that I refer to when and if my physiology doesn't prompt me one way or the other. External authority must pass the "does it fit" test. My experience of Christianity is like an enormous jigsaw puzzle with many piles of similar looking tiles waiting to be joined to the central picture that is being fleshed out as my life reveals my faith to me. If the authority doesn't fit the picture it stays in its pile until it does.
It's not that I disregard authority, it's that I reserve judgment about it. I never dismiss it outright I simply keep it in the "need more information" pile.
AFF
Thanks, @A Feminine Force - the word I'd use for what you describe as your first filter is discernment.
Thinking about the simile of your experience of Christianity: my experience is that the image changes radically, depending on the position from which I look at it. What looks like a picture from one angle looks like a jumble of unconnected pieces from another.
There's an Old Testament quote for this. You'll know it, I'm sure. The one about everyone doing what was right in their own eyes ... 😉
More seriously, and in response to @A Feminine Force also, these are areas where we all have to tread carefully. Pitfalls all round.
We have to respect our own 'nous' and integrity and yes, as @pease says, individual discernment does come into it. Not everything is decided by committee as it were.
I do understand what you are saying @Hugal and sometimes wish we had a different term than 'mysticism' for what we are talking about on this thread because it conjures up all manner of connotations and associations.
I'll be honest, much of what @A Feminine Force has described over the years as part of their 'mystical and sometimes magical journey through Christianity' doesn't sit comfortably with me. Reincarnation and so forth.
So what do we do about that? Whose discernment do we trust or go with? @A Feminine Force's or mine?
Or do we need some kind of external authority be it a Papal Magisterium, the Orthodox 'conciliarity' thing, a sola scriptura and confessional approach?
Or something else entirely?
Are each of us our own Pope?
I'm thinking aloud here and I do certainly allow room for the 'unknown' as it were and am aware that not everything is going to have a cut-and-dried neatly sewn up answer wherever we stand on these issues.
But to all practical intents and purposes we need some 'systems and measure of discernment that doesn't simply depend on how we 'feel' at any given time.
My answer to that is simple. You go with your own.
We don't have to agree with one another about the mechanics of reality and the methods of our salvation in order to love one another and do unto each other as we would others do unto us.
One of the the things I love about being a Baptist is the belief that we are all made by God in such a way as to be able to properly discern for ourselves His presence in the Word and in the World.
God wants to be perceived, known, and appreciated by us, and has properly equipped us to do so. I believe one of the purest expressions of this desire is expressed in the Song of Songs. And so one of the ways we can do that is to see, know and appreciate each other and the Creation because you never know Whose face you are going to see under that hoodie or behind that welder's or dental hygienist's mask.
AFF
I still think the Baptist notion of 'soul-competence' has merit, although I'd obviously place an emphasis on ecclesial authority beyond that of the individual congregation.
That doesn't mean that I don't 'see, know and appreciate' those who see things differently to me.
One of the reasons I like these boards is due to the range of views we can encounter here, although I don't think the range is as wide as it once was.
I s'pose I am wary of the Book of Judges thing about everyone doing what was right in their own eyes, but that doesn't mean I want to see a dull uniformity either.
I agree. Let me see if I can describe the sensation.
It's not about "if it feels good it must be right". It's more like "it feels right only if it's good".
AFF
One of the ten lepers returns to thank Christ, and is the one whose faith has made him whole. Again, not seeing the privileging of the corporate, especially since he breaks off from a journey to the temple.
Experience of God is essentially individual, because God's throne is the human heart. It is nourished and balanced by word and sacrament. Both can come from their religiously endorsed sources, but the holy spirit is a wild creature, and capable of speaking or otherwise revealing herself from anywhere.
Discernment is central, and again is fundamentally individual, but with strong collective underpinning.
Even collective discernment works because individuals invest in it, and indeed work through it. By the same token, collective egos are still egos.
I have long felt that there are three fundamental "moods" among the religious/spiritual, corresponding to the three persons of the trinity - there's the father-focussed, looking always for an authority under and in front of them, be it the church, the biblical texts, or an equivalent. There's the son-focussed, who focus everything in relationship, drawing their assurance and authority from a beloved other. There's the spirit-focussed, looking into themselves and looking around them with a discerning, or would-be discerning, eye. Even companionship comes, fundamentally from within.
I would put myself in the latter group, though with some of the second and an element of the first. I am also a sacramentalist, because I find the story told by the actions and physical experience associated with the sacraments instinctively compelling.
Go to your closet, and pray to your father. How very corporate.
One of the ten lepers returns to thank Christ, and is the one whose faith has made him whole. Again, not seeing the privileging of the corporate, especially since he breaks off from a journey to the temple.
Experience of God is essentially individual, because God's throne is the human heart. It is nourished and balanced by word and sacrament. Both can come from their religiously endorsed sources, but the holy spirit is a wild creature, and capable of speaking or otherwise revealing herself from anywhere.
Discernment is central, and again is fundamentally individual, but with strong collective underpinning.
Even collective discernment works because individuals invest in it, and indeed work through it. By the same token, collective egos are still egos.
I have long felt that there are three fundamental "moods" among the religious/spiritual, corresponding to the three persons of the trinity - there's the father-focussed, looking always for an authority under and in front of them, be it the church, the biblical texts, or an equivalent. There's the son-focussed, who focus everything in relationship, drawing their assurance and authority from a beloved other. There's the spirit-focussed, looking into themselves and looking around them with a discerning, or would-be discerning, eye. Even companionship comes, fundamentally from within. This is the approach I would call mysticism. It's a kind of spiritual anarchy, but with a strong element of discernment.
I would put myself in the latter group, though with some of the second and an element of the first. I am also a sacramentalist, because I find the story of God's unconditional love for creation told by the actions and physical experiences associated with the sacraments instinctively compelling and spiritually highly nourishing. Sometimes it feels like an unfortunate addiction, but it is stubbornly part of me.
It reminded me of C.S. Lewis' Aslan "He's not a tame lion.." which bewildered me as a child but which became abundantly clear to me in adulthood.
AFF
'Go show yourself to the priests,' very corporate.
'You/we (plural) are the Body of Christ ...'
Need I go on?
Why dichotomise?
Why not have the individual and the corporate as a both/and thing and hold them in tension at times if necessary?
@Nick Tamen the 'keep your eyes on your own plate thing' refers to praxis of course. It's about not judging other people's behaviour rather than assessing or discussing their theology. Surely we can debate these things respectfully?
Of course @A Feminine Force can believe whatever she wishes. We can agree or disagree as to whether her claims - if I understand her correctly - to have had several incarnations is compatible or otherwise with received small o orthodox creedal Christianity or scripture / tradition / Tradition without sitting in judgement on her as a person.
Whether we agree or not we can't prove it one way or another, unless we wake up dead and find we're being reincarnated as someone else.
Heck, we may all of us wake up dead and find ourselves in oblivion and that our faith had no substance after all.
I'm not out to decry or denounce whatever experiences A Feminine Force may or may not have had or whether they were what she believes them to have been but if it is all down to individual judgement then I could come on here claiming to believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster and nobody could question or challenge that belief - should they be inclined to do so - by reference to any schema be it sola scriptura, Church Tradition or whatever else.
I hasten to add that whilst I confess myself puzzled by some of A Feminine Force's posts - as they don't 'fit' with small o or Big O orthodox Christian belief as I understand it, I enjoy reading her posts and am glad she feels she can share these things with the rest of us.
I daresay other Shipmates find my posts odd at times and wonder how I can believe some of the things I write on these boards.
Much love to you all and the Ship we sail together in.
AFF
Somehow, I managed to say the opposite of what I meant in my first sentence. I meant something like "I'm not saying that everything must be entirely personally constructed and discerned by each person individually." Then I did manage to say something like what I mean.
And yes, I know the “plate” saying refers to praxis. That’s why I said it was a “riff” on it. I do think there are some parallels that can be drawn.
As for corporate vs individual discernment, surely there is a place for both. Some things we must each discern for ourselves. (Though personally, I appreciate the assistance of some trusted friends in personal discernment.) And some things we must discern as communities.
I'm not saying that everything should be 'corporate' any more than @ThunderBunk is saying that everything should be individualised to the extent that we don't care about anyone else.
I thank @A Feminine Force for her forbearance with me, and others like me. She clearly cares about other people and I wish I could consistently do the same.
I was in two minds whether to mention disagreements I might have with A Feminine Force over mystical matters, partly because I didn't want to cause offence and partly because Big O Orthodox people like me - particularly converts - can be pains in the arse and act as theology or doctrinal police when the best course of action would be to keep shtum.
On balance, rightly or wrongly, I took that risk partly because A Feminine Force would know darn well that I wouldn't share all her views on mysticism or ecclesiology and partly because I felt she would be robust enough to respond graciously and not take offence.
As it turned out, she responded more graciously than I deserved.
There is a Christlikeness in that which transcends any temporary or temporal disagreements we might have.
We have more in common than those things which keep us apart.
@Gamma Gamaliel, it seems that you prefer to privilege the corporate. But, to echo Nick Tamen, what I'd like to know is why.
My personal experience is that the Holy Spirit does not privilege the corporate. The Holy Spirit is indeed a wild creature. And at times they inspire a kind of spiritual anarchy. However, they are always concerned with building up the individual, and with building up the body. And both of these require discernment.
Absolutely. By way of example, it seems to me that the direction of travel of a community should be a matter for that community to discern.
'My personalexperience is that the Holy Spirit does not privilege the corporate.
Whereas I would say, 'Our personal experience...'
It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about us.
What if I said, 'My personal experience is that the Holy Spirit privileges the corporate.'
Would my 'personal experience' trump your 'personal experience' or your 'personal experience' trump mine?
Who decides?
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that nobody has personal experiences but only corporate ones, still less than we should all be guided by 'group-think'.
What saith the scriptures?
'The manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.'
If that's not corporate I don't know what is.
The late Fr John Zizoulas wrote a book called Being as Communion. I didn't understand it all, it's a dense read.
But the gist of it is that we find ourselves and one another in the context of communion and fellowship.
We don't lose our individual integrity by being part of a family or a church or a squash club or any other group - unless it is a controlling or cultish one.
'It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.'
I don't know why anything I'm saying should sound so puzzling or off-putting to people.
I'm only saying what we find in scripture and Tradition - whether small t or Big T.
The short answer to your question @pease is that I'm saying these things because that's what I understand the Holy Scriptures and the broad thrust of the Christian tradition in its various forms to teach us.
Why are there icons in Orthodox churches? Partly to remind us that we are part of a wider community, those who are being redeemed in this life as it were and those who are in the Church Triumphant in Heaven.
This isn't rocket science. It's basic Christian teaching and can be found across the entire Christian spectrum, with differing layers of emphasis of course.
Why dichotomise?
Nobody is saying that God will only speak to people or deal with them solely in a corporate context.
'The wind bloweth where it listeth ..."
I keep saying that and nobody believes me.
Instead they go off on one as if I'm denying the validity of any personal experience they may or may not have had or questioning their personal integrity.
I am doing no such thing.
Yes, it's obvious that Orthodoxy is going to take a less individualised approach than Protestantism does. It comes with the territory and it's the ecclesial context I operate within.
I'm not saying that all Protestants are rampant illuminists who make themselves their own Pope and don't give a monkey's about anyone else. Far from it.
Still less am I saying that individually or collectively the Orthodox are paragons of corporate virtue.
I do think, though, that some forms of Protestantism can veer off into overly subjective forms of spirituality - 'my personal Saviour...' 'your own personal Jesus' as it were.
Equally, of course, more 'corporate' traditions or Traditions can bind themselves into a straitjacket of collective entropy.
I don't know how I can make my comments clearer. Whatever I say on this matter seems to elicit a reaction which is very different from what I intend.
All I am saying is that we shouldn't dichotomise the individual and the collective to the extent that we often do in late or post-modernity.
Other cultures don't.
Collective decision is legitimated by the pooling of individual autonomy. It has no power, no legitimacy beyond that. Your denomination has the capacity to influence your life because you give it that capacity. It has nothing of itself, in your life at least.
In some society, churches have political power, meaning that it is harder to resist. But in ours, as it is now, no church has significant power unless you grant it.
This is not the same as influence - the Church of England in particular has a certain, declining, influence in England, and the wider UK - but in terms of power, that is granted per person, when it comes to personal beliefs and decisions.
Keeping saying something and expecting a different response reminds me of a well-known saying about the quantum world.
My understanding is that it's the ecclesial context you have chosen to operate in, being a personal, freely-made choice. Which seems a fairly late-modern, individualistic thing for you to have done.
What you're doing, over and over, is telling us that our notion of an appropriate balance between the individual and the collective is wrong. And, as already pointed out, continuing to expect a response other than the one you're getting. For all its many faults, the culture we inhabit is one in which we can try a different approach.
It seems that "both/and" is (predominantly Catholic) shorthand for saying that the Catholic mindset is less individualistic and less dichotomising than the "either/or" of Protestantism.
And yes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is all what Einstein said it was.
But to borrow a well-known Protestant phrase, 'Here I stand ...'. 😉 You know the rest.
Ok. Where to start?
Of course choosing one's religious affiliation is a fairly modern (or post-modern) thing to do and yes, on the level of making a personal choice it's individualistic.
People couldn't make those kinds of decisions quite so easily in the past and it could still be quite difficult changing from a default Orthodox position to a Protestant one, say, in some majority Orthodox countries even though they may ostensibly have freedom of religion in their political constitutions.
Yes, I've chosen to become Orthodox. I could have chosen to become Quaker or URC or RC or ...
Just as you and @ThunderBunk have chosen to remain Anglican or whatever church affiliation you happen to have. We are all free agents.
As I see it, I'm not trying to tell you that what you consider to be 'an appropriate balance between the individual and collective is wrong.'
Rather the boot was on the other foot. You @Pease were telling me that I'd got it out of whack, that I was prioritising the collective over the individual and that 'in your personal experience' things were the other way round to what you understood me to be saying and that the Holy Spirit privileges the individual over the collective.
Which wasn't what I was saying at all. What I was saying was that there should be an appropriate balance between the individual and the collective.
If we claim that our 'personal experience' trumps everything else then we are setting ourselves up as the arbiter and may run the risk of becoming overly subjective.
Yes, the Christian faith is a personal faith, but it's one that is lived out and expressed in community and in conjunction with other people.
'No man is an island entire of itself ...
@ThunderBunk of course any group or organisation, church or denomination is only going to have as much influence over me as I voluntarily allow it. I am perfectly at liberty to attend the Liturgy tomorrow or not attend it if I decide to go somewhere else instead. Nobody is going to come knocking at my door if I don't turn up.
The same applies where you are.
Meanwhile, @Pease, I don't see the 'both/and' thing as being predominantly Catholic (or Orthodox) but something that is common to all forms of historic creedal Christianity.
Heck, if we believe that Christ is fully God and fully human at one and the same time according to the historic Creeds then that's a both/and thing irrespective of whether we are RC, Protestant or Orthodox.
That said, I do think that some - but by no means all - sections of particularly conservative Protestantism do have a tendency to be somewhat dualistic and either/or.
But I'm not levelling that charge at anyone here.
I hope that clarifies things a bit.