Is Christianity at it's best when it's mystical or rational?

[Gnarwhal]

Or are both avenues equally good?

I'm looking for objective thoughts on this because frankly, I'm anything but objective when it comes to these matters. I've had far too many bad experiences with the mystical side of faith (spent a couple of years immersed in the charismatic movement - IHOP, Bethel, etc). I was naïve when I got sucked into it and it took a while to claw my way out, or rather for God to rescue me from it.

So I prefer the rational approach to Christian faith, but I've known some genuinely amazing people who have not done anything wrong or damaging, but are more involved in the mystical side of Christianity than anything else.

One girl in particular, our moms have known each other for decades, I haven't seen this girl in several years but I had always figured her for a rational person. She went to my church (a PCUSA church) went to college, did many of those things that I definitely did not find to be indicative of the charismatic flavor of Christianity. Yet, I come to find out last month that she goes/went to Bethel's School of Supernatural Ministry. It didn't add up to me.

Does the mystical side of Christianity, at this point in time, tend to be more or less beneficial than the rational side? Or vice-versa?

Thoughts?

 

[katerinah1947]

Or are both avenues equally good?

I'm looking for objective thoughts on this because frankly, I'm anything but objective when it comes to these matters. I've had far too many bad experiences with the mystical side of faith (spent a couple of years immersed in the charismatic movement - IHOP, Bethel, etc). I was naïve when I got sucked into it and it took a while to claw my way out, or rather for God to rescue me from it.

So I prefer the rational approach to Christian faith, but I've known some genuinely amazing people who have not done anything wrong or damaging, but are more involved in the mystical side of Christianity than anything else.

One girl in particular, our moms have known each other for decades, I haven't seen this girl in several years but I had always figured her for a rational person. She went to my church (a PCUSA church) went to college, did many of those things that I definitely did not find to be indicative of the charismatic flavor of Christianity. Yet, I come to find out last month that she goes/went to Bethel's School of Supernatural Ministry. It didn't add up to me.

Does the mystical side of Christianity, at this point in time, tend to be more or less beneficial than the rational side? Or vice-versa?

Thoughts?

Hi,

Better? Hmmmm! How about this, instead of Better or Worse, and Better at what, how about What is it God wants you to do?

Now back to myticism and it's a very poor word in my opinion. Mystics do illegal Christian things, and some do not. My most general term for what I am some of the time is this. The BAD Guys can talk to me and The Good guys can talk to me, that do not exist in bodily forms like mine and yours.

Understand please, everything that is if the Spiritual Realm can talk to me, can give me visions. Now precisely how do I handle that. I let the Bible be my Guide. Also I let God intervene as He does, to correct errors in anything I have that is genuinely wrong.

Is that a long process leaving me at times with errors? Yes. Am I a Chrisitian? Was I always a Chrisitian? No. Did Mysticism make me a Christian? No. No it did not. Did God make me a Christian? Yes. Did God ignore the mystical part of me to make me a Chrisitian? No. But are you saying God did not only use the mystical part of you, in order to make you a Christian. Actually, He used virtually no part of that, to make me a Christian. Did He use any part of that to make you a Christian. Yes. Yes indeed. What parts? Parts I didn't even know existed, such as being a mystic. Such as leading me to the right answers even in Civilian life. Such as after proving The Bible is Real, which every one knows is impossible, after that, allowing much of the supernatural world of Him to exist in my life then causing me never to be able to forget that original proof, of how and why The Bible is Real. If you only proved the Bible is Real, how did you find God from that? The Bible talks about God. Since the Bible is Real and I know how it is Real then I know God is Real, and I know much about Him from that book.
I have heard of many people who know God and His Son Jesus are Real from The Bible and I have heard of others who know Jesus is Real by some form of knowing. That knowing might include mysticism.
The point here is not why they believe, but if the mysticism part is not in you, why do you expect to be given it by hanging out with Mystics? Do you reealize you are asking God or expecting God to do what you want Him to do, which is make you a mystic so you can learn about Him when in fact that may not be His choice for you, nor the way he made you.
I don't have a choice to be mystical or not. Even the Psychologists finally came to my rescue one day in this way: "I am giving you a piece of paper. You need to be protected. Few mystics exist. They are all hurt by others, who don't understand them. Because it is so rare you will continue to be called a lot of things, and you will continue to be hurt by others. You are a mystic. You are a medical mystic." Notice, I did not get a choice in this, to my knowledge. I don't have choices to be a mystic, to have blond or brown hair, to be tall or short, I just am.
I am what I am, some of those are choices. Some choiced determine who I am to some extent. You have some choices also. Not all of you is by choice, that we know of, an even if you are a mystic, remember the bad guys want to lie to you, while the good guys want you to know The God as He is, and that God is exactly what the Christians say He is. Trinitarian, and Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and Jesus really did come and die on the cross for us, to fulfill His own Father's Will, as the Father did our will, our secret will, which is to be with Him again.
Love, dear is doing the will of the one you love, in God's definition of the term. That is how God defines that word to me. Thus Love consists of this, not that you have loved, but that you have been loved, turns into this: Doing the will of the one you love, consists of this, not that you have done My Will, but that I have done your wills in giving you the chance for eternal life.
The two greatest commandments turn into this. They start this way. Love God with your whole heart and with your whole strength. The second is love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Do the will of God, with your whole heart and with your whole strength. The secoond is this, do the will of your neighbor as you do the will of yourself. Finishing Jesus says this. Within those two rules, all the law is encompassed. Then He says, I give you a new command: Do The Will of Others, as I have done your wills. We see that as Love others as I have loved you.
What I have given you is Biblical with Help. No matter how you learn of God, let go and let God, but check everything. Test everything. Use only that which is correct.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[Cappadocious]

I think Christianity would be better off without the mystical and the rational as they are popularly understood.

 

[RDKirk]

How about defining the terms so that we're all speaking the same language. What are you calling "mystical?" What are you calling "rational?"

 

[hedrick]

People tend to have different emphases in their faith. Mystical and rational aren’t the only possible ones. Service to others is also a major focus, and arguably the one that Jesus himself emphasized the most (though he had mystical experiences himself and valued them).

It’s possible to go to extremes with any of these, but I don’t think there’s a problem with having a mix of people within the Church.

 

[katerinah1947]

People tend to have different emphases in their faith. Mystical and rational aren’t the only possible ones. Service to others is also a major focus, and arguably the one that Jesus himself emphasized the most (though he had mystical experiences himself and valued them).

It’s possible to go to extremes with any of these, but I don’t think there’s a problem with having a mix of people within the Church.

Hi,
Precisely, succinctly said. It is not one or another, it is all of us, therefore using all the gifts, to help the world, and each other also.
Wow. Nicely said!
LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

 

[Gnarwhal]

Okay, for the purposes of this thread I'm understanding "mystical" as the charismatic expression of Christianity like Bethel, like what's elaborated on in this article.

As far as rational Christianity, I consider the common ground that RT folk have to be a rational one in that we have a doctrinal foundation that our faith is based on, rather than an experiential one.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but I consider rational Christians to be even-tempered, not easily coaxed into a frenzy nor swept up in every breeze that's labeled a movement of the spirit.

 

[RDKirk]

Okay, for the purposes of this thread I'm understanding "mystical" as the charismatic expression of Christianity like Bethel, like what's elaborated on in this article.

As far as rational Christianity, I consider the common ground that RT folk have to be a rational one in that we have a doctrinal foundation that our faith is based on, rather than an experiential one.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but I consider rational Christians to be even-tempered, not easily coaxed into a frenzy nor swept up in every breeze that's labeled a movement of the spirit.

So...was the apostle Paul (seeing visions, healing the dead, being followed by signs and wonders) mystical or rational (writing Romans)?

 

[com7fy8]

I would say it is not mystical or rational, but personal.

Paul says we need "faith working through love", in Galatians 5:6. Faith has us with God in trust, and love has us personally sharing with Him . . . in His love >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

In God's love, we have His almighty power against sin and evil and cruel emotions (1 John 4:18); and in His love is His own creativity for how to love each person . . . any person, at all.

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

So, each of us is "joined to the Lord" and "one spirit with Him" > this is very personal and intimate.

And what comes from Him is not what ones would call mystical, but very clear and right and practical. Heaven's good has meant that Jesus came here for us. So, being Heavenly is of much earthly good. And this is better than anything rational that we humans can come up with.

Mystical can be religion, and rational can be human and religion.

However, God can have us experiencing what is mystical and rational, however He pleases to share with us, in His way of mystical and rational.

So, personally submit to God, all the time, and discover how He guides our attention . . . "continually" (Isaiah 58:11) < < <

personal and continual . . . more and better as we grow in Jesus

 

[topcare]

I am not sure. I like mystical aspects but when I think of mystical I think of St. John the Apostle, St. Paul and many Saints like Francis, Teresa of Avila, St. Patrick, etc.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I personally find the rational aspects of Christianity more compelling and applicable to my life. Have you ever read The Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson believed Jesus Christ's teachings were &#8220;the most benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man&#8221;, and tried to distill the essence of His teachings into a concise book.

The Jefferson Bible, Smithsonian Edition: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Thomas Jefferson, Harry Rubenstein, Barbara Clark Smith, Janice Stagnitto Ellis: 9781588343123: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Gnarwhal]

I personally find the rational aspects of Christianity more compelling and applicable to my life. Have you ever read The Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson believed Jesus Christ's teachings were “the most benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man”, and tried to distill the essence of His teachings into a concise book.

The Jefferson Bible, Smithsonian Edition: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Thomas Jefferson, Harry Rubenstein, Barbara Clark Smith, Janice Stagnitto Ellis: 9781588343123: Amazon.com: Books

I've been interested, yet reluctant, given Jefferson's deistic tendencies - I'm not quite sure how I feel about reading it just because of what I've heard regarding his handling of the text. Are you talking about checking it out merely from a literary perspective or also from a doctrinal/theological perspective?

 

[znr]

Is Christianity at it's best when it's mystical or rational?

As someone who came out of churches associated with Bethel I can completely understand your dilemma and all it involves. But first, I want to say that I had several "mystical" experiences, one as a 7 year old, and the other as a teenager right after accepting Jesus as Lord. In the second experience I felt as though God had literally, somehow, removed something from my brain. I later realized that it was a spiritual deliverance. The fruit of which was love of God, desire to serve others, desire to share God with others, desire to reconcile relationships, desire to please God. It was a very sweet time of fellowship with the Lord. Immediately after I gave my life to Christ I started attending a pentecostal church that mostly consisted of mellow "spirit filled" people who had a desire to know God and spend time together. It was also a very orderly church--and they taught me the basics of scripture. It was at this church that I learned I should test all spirits. They stressed the importance of this. But I was young, and lazy, and attracted to the freedom that the more charismatic churches seemed to offer. Now this was 20 something years ago, and the term "charismatic" meant something completely different than it means at Bethel.

I would call my two experiences with God mystical in the purest scriptural sense. The fruit of them was of the fruit of the spirit. What I call Bethel is something all together different mind you. While Paul and Jesus had mystical experiences, Bethel produces something else. What exactly it is is up for debate. But let's just say I finally stopped being lazy and started testing the spirits.

It's strange, because I was very skeptical about Bethel and all these signs and wonders they claim. But the claims of gold dust, diamonds, well these were just pure madness and mayhem in my opinion. Tested, these so called "mystical" experiences are nothing like those of Paul or Jesus--for they produce little fruit. I looked closely at their doctrine. It was fascinating on one hand, and I was hoping that these free spirited people would became like family. But after I started really looking close at their doctrine I saw clearly, the spirits failing the tests. Their teachings don't line up with scripture, the fruit of these so called mystical experiences only lead to more mysticism, unlike those mystical experiences of Jesus, or Paul.

Though I was skeptical, there was a part of me that wanted to wait around and see if I could find the Lord in all of this insanity. When I finally realized I wasn't finding God there, I'd had enough weirdness and wasted enough time and so I left for good. I've been spending time filling my head with rational Christianity now, and while I feel set free and delivered from Bethel's bad mojo, I really miss the simple sweet fellowship with other believers, the kind where you serve each other, help each other, pray with one another.

Like you, I found myself running to the rational side of Christianity because coming out such a whacky environment was too intense and too confusing. Which, well, that's just more evidence that the teachings were not grounded in scripture, but that is another topic. So for several years now I've gravitated toward the more rational side of Christianity. And the thing is, I am not a rational thinker--but given the choice between Bethel mysticism and rational Christianity, I'll take rational Christianity. And that's the trap. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Like another poster said, there is a third choice, serving one another as Jesus did. The first church I landed in was this type of church, and yes they were slightly mystical too, but in such a sweet gentle, orderly way. It was a simple church...I miss it.

So which is better, mystical Christianity or rational Christianity? I don't know nor do I feel pressed to find out right now. When I see the mystical these days it's usually punctuated by excess, when I see rational Christianity, there is little room for any mysticism, even that like Jesus' or Paul's.

Or are both avenues equally good?

I'm looking for objective thoughts on this because frankly, I'm anything but objective when it comes to these matters. I've had far too many bad experiences with the mystical side of faith (spent a couple of years immersed in the charismatic movement - IHOP, Bethel, etc). I was naïve when I got sucked into it and it took a while to claw my way out, or rather for God to rescue me from it.

So I prefer the rational approach to Christian faith, but I've known some genuinely amazing people who have not done anything wrong or damaging, but are more involved in the mystical side of Christianity than anything else.

One girl in particular, our moms have known each other for decades, I haven't seen this girl in several years but I had always figured her for a rational person. She went to my church (a PCUSA church) went to college, did many of those things that I definitely did not find to be indicative of the charismatic flavor of Christianity. Yet, I come to find out last month that she goes/went to Bethel's School of Supernatural Ministry. It didn't add up to me.

Does the mystical side of Christianity, at this point in time, tend to be more or less beneficial than the rational side? Or vice-versa?

Thoughts?

 

[RDKirk]

Like you, I found myself running to the rational side of Christianity because coming out such a whacky environment was too intense and too confusing. Which, well, that's just more evidence that the teachings were not grounded in scripture, but that is another topic. So for several years now I've gravitated toward the more rational side of Christianity. And the thing is, I am not a rational thinker--but given the choice between Bethel mysticism and rational Christianity, I'll take rational Christianity. And that's the trap. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Like another poster said, there is a third choice, serving one another as Jesus did. The first church I landed in was this type of church, and yes they were slightly mystical too, but in such a sweet gentle, orderly way. It was a simple church...I miss it.

I would not suggest that "serving" is a different choice from "rationality" or "mysticism."

However, I have been in a serving congregation before, and I'm in one now. I will strongly agree that when a congregation gets busy doing the work of the Body of Christ, of which serving is as much a part as evangelism, that rationality and mysticism will operate cooperatively to make their work effective.

For instance, I have seen modern versions of the miracle of the loaves and fishes operate several times in a congregation where the pastor had stated publicly, "No one in this congregation even need worry about food, clothing, or shelter....and everyone is welcomed to join."

In that congregation, there was plenty of rationality as they met various needs: Medical, financial, psychological, et cetera. But there was just as much mystical as the very things they needed were always available, and the providers inexplicably never found their own supplies depleted.

 

[PaladinValer]

Both!

To be honest, both the West and the East have issues: the West often overemphasizes the rational, and the East often overemphasizes the mystical.

...which is why I am Anglican, which finds a good balance between

 

[Gnarwhal]

Both!

To be honest, both the West and the East have issues: the West often overemphasizes the rational, and the East often overemphasizes the mystical.

...which is why I am Anglican, which finds a good balance between

Ha! Touché.

What does the mystical side of things look like in Anglicanism? I joined/am joining Presbyterianism because I appreciate how rational it is, at least compared to where I come from (C&MA = Holiness Movement).

 

[PaladinValer]

What does the mystical side of things look like in Anglicanism? I joined/am joining Presbyterianism because I appreciate how rational it is, at least compared to where I come from (C&MA = Holiness Movement)

We leave the sacraments more of a mystery, especially Holy Communion, than the West. Anglicanism also has less dogmas than the West, and has historically taken a more mystic view of things. The Church in the British Isles, before the Angles and Saxons came, was very monastically-driven, with abbots being more powerful than bishops, and theosis (though called a different word) has a solid place in our soteriology.

Bishop N.T. Wright is a good example on how an Anglican finds balance between rational and mystical.

 

[znr]

I don't categorize God's supernatural works as mysticism. As I understand it, my observation is that mysticism is what happens after people start adding and subtracting from the work of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't think twice about God multiplying loaves, I've also seen God do wondrous things like you describe, but I don't consider this mysticism. God promises to provide those things which we need, food, water, shelter. However--Gold dust, diamonds, strange manifestations of some spirit or three, writhing about on the ground convulsing, twitching uncontrollably, etc: I perceive that as mysticism - not from God, and nowhere found in the bible by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly the intention behind seeking these signs and wonders is no where illustrated in scripture - unless I've missed it.

I would not suggest that "serving" is a different choice from "rationality" or "mysticism."

However, I have been in a serving congregation before, and I'm in one now. I will strongly agree that when a congregation gets busy doing the work of the Body of Christ, of which serving is as much a part as evangelism, that rationality and mysticism will operate cooperatively to make their work effective.

For instance, I have seen modern versions of the miracle of the loaves and fishes operate several times in a congregation where the pastor had stated publicly, "No one in this congregation even need worry about food, clothing, or shelter....and everyone is welcomed to join."

In that congregation, there was plenty of rationality as they met various needs: Medical, financial, psychological, et cetera. But there was just as much mystical as the very things they needed were always available, and the providers inexplicably never found their own supplies depleted.

Again, I consider this God;s supernatural provision as promised, not mysticism. But that's how I see it. It may be mystical in nature because it's supernatural, but the distinction between this mystical aspect and the mysticism of, for example, Bethel - is that one is promised by God-- but the other is often contrived, requires use of hypnotic techniques to obtain, requires immersion in a particular culture that seeks outward signs that are not beneficial, is introducing cultish practices.

Thats my 2 cents. Actually I have 1,000,000 cents on this issue.

 

[Gnarwhal]

We leave the sacraments more of a mystery, especially Holy Communion, than the West. Anglicanism also has less dogmas than the West, and has historically taken a more mystic view of things. The Church in the British Isles, before the Angles and Saxons came, was very monastically-driven, with abbots being more powerful than bishops, and theosis (though called a different word) has a solid place in our soteriology.

Bishop N.T. Wright is a good example on how an Anglican finds balance between rational and mystical.

See, that's a mystical aspect that I can get behind, that's fitting for Christianity. I think the stuff most often labeled "mystical" in the circles I come from is more of a psychological/emotional frenzy and manipulation, or it's flat out cultish. Depending on the events and the motivation and explanation behind such things.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Okay, for the purposes of this thread I'm understanding "mystical" as the charismatic expression of Christianity like Bethel, like what's elaborated on in this article.

As far as rational Christianity, I consider the common ground that RT folk have to be a rational one in that we have a doctrinal foundation that our faith is based on, rather than an experiential one.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but I consider rational Christians to be even-tempered, not easily coaxed into a frenzy nor swept up in every breeze that's labeled a movement of the spirit.

If those are your definitions, I'm afraid I have to agree with

I think Christianity would be better off without the mystical and the rational as they are popularly understood.

What I mean when I say "mystical" Christianity, has more to do with not trying to take explanations farther than we ought, and things that you hear out of monasticism - being steeped in prayer, and being aware of God at all times. That kind of thing.

The kind of mystical you mention, I agree often has too much to do with emotionalism. I have plenty of experience there too. It's real - the problem is that discernment is very difficult. Even if some things come from God, other things often do not. And seeking after spiritual experience for its own sake is a near-guarantee of opening oneself to deception, IMO. Being involved in that kind of thing, the temptation is too great. Even if you know you shouldn't be seeking experience for its own sake, and you claim you don't ... it's far too easy to really desire it.

And rational can certainly be good, but again depending on how you define it. Of course we should use our minds, and much can be gained. But if "logic" is the foundation of our faith, then I'm not sure in the end that it's true faith, until it has developed beyond that.

Ideally, I would say it should be a balance of BOTH rationalism and mysticism (and both of "the good kind") - which I'm not sure you mean in either case.