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

[RDKirk]

Both are not good form.
The only scripturally supported method is Berean.

11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica,
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
every day to see if what Paul said was true.

12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek
women and many Greek men.

What, however, is actually being praised here? Are they being praised because they examined the scriptures or because they received the message with great eagerness?

The comparison is between the Jews of Berea and the Jews of Thessalonica--but notice that there were Greeks who became believers without examining the scriptures (which would have meant nothing to them, not being Jews). Were the new Greek believers less noble or more noble than the Jews of Thessalonica?

What about that jailer in Philippi? He was moved by a mystical act of the Holy Spirit. Less noble or more noble?

And if less noble, then "noble" really doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Job8]

Christianity is neither mystical nor rational but spiritual and practical. Christianity is essentially Christ, who indwells the believer with the Holy Spirit. Since agape love is the ultimate commandment to be exercised in the power of the Holy Spirit, there is nothing mystical or rational about it.

 

[topcare]

The definition of mystical is

a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament>

b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light>

Mystical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Well Christianity does have mystical elements and as definition a above the Holy Eucharist is a mystical element.

 

[duolos]

Christianity is neither mystical nor rational but spiritual and practical. Christianity is essentially Christ, who indwells the believer with the Holy Spirit. Since agape love is the ultimate commandment to be exercised in the power of the Holy Spirit, there is nothing mystical or rational about it.

You say Christianity is not mystical and then go on to use mystical language to describe Christianity, methinks one doesn't know what mysticism is.
It also appears that you are wanting to follow Tertullian in his denouncement of Greek philosophy, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" even he admitted that Christianity was a philosophy or rational, part of that is because as Paul says; Christ is the wisdom of God that makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

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

or maybe when it's Nous-ical.

from OrthodoxWiki.org:

Nous (adj. noetic) in Orthodox Christianity is the eye of the soul. Just as the soul of man, is created by God, man's soul is intelligent and noetic. St. Thalassios wrote that God created beings "with a capacity to receive the Spirit and to attain knowledge of Himself; He has brought into existence the senses and sensory perception to serve such beings."[1] Eastern Orthodox Christians hold that God did this by creating mankind with intelligence and noetic faculties. Angels have intelligence and nous, whereas men have reason, nous and sensory perception. This follows the idea that man is a microcosm and an expression of the whole creation or macrocosmos; it is through the healed and corrected nous and the intelligence that man knows and experiences God.

In this belief, soul is created in the image of God. Since God is Trinitarian, Mankind is Nous, Word and Spirit. The same is held true of the soul (or heart): it has nous, word and spirit. To understand this better first an understanding of St. Gregory Palamas's teaching that man is a representation of the trinitarian mystery should be addressed. This holds that God is not meant in the sense that the Trinity should be understood anthropomorphically, but man is to be understood in a triune way. Or, that the Trinitarian God is not to be interpreted from the point of view of individual man, but man is interpreted on the basis of the Trinitarian God. And this interpretation is revelatory not merely psychological and human. This means that it is only when a person is within the revelation, as all the saints lived, that he can grasp this understanding completely (see theoria). The second presupposition is that mankind has and is composed of nous, word and spirit like the trinitarian mode of being. Man's nous, word, and spirit are not hypostasis or individual existences or realities, but activities or energies of the soul. Were as in the case with God or the Persons of the Holy Trinity each are indeed hypostases. So these three components of each individual man are 'inseparable from one another' but they do not have a personal character" when in speaking of the being that is mankind.

The nous as the eye of the soul, which some Fathers also call the heart, is the center of man and is where true (spiritual) knowledge is validated. This is seen as true knowledge which is "implanted in the nous as always co-existing with it."[2]

Mary

 

[catherine777]

I also think it would be very unfair to look at Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity in light of Bethel, IHOP, etc who represent a different beast altogether being part of Wagner's so called New Apostolic Reformation.

Beast? You think that NAR movement is really so bad?????

 

[Received]

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?

Knowing the limits of reason allows you to know when the deep end of mysticism starts. Both are part of the pool.

 

[Athanasias]

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?

as a Catholic we have both the mystical and rational. Often times mysticism does not contradict reason. Sometimes some truth is higher then reason can comprehend but they never contradict it. St. Thomas Aquinas is a good example of a person who has had personal mystical experiences with Jesus on several occasions and was grounded in reason.

 

[prodromos]

as a Catholic we have both the mystical and rational. Often times mysticism does not contradict reason. Sometimes some truth is higher then reason can comprehend but they never contradict it. St. Thomas Aquinas is a good example of a person who has had personal mystical experiences with Jesus on several occasions and was grounded in reason.

Didn't he consider all his former reasoning as "straw" after his mystical experience?

 

[Athanasias]

Didn't he consider all his former reasoning as "straw" after his mystical experience?

Oh Sure I know a Jewish convert that had a mystical experience with Mary that led him to the Catholic Church and when he came back in his body he was depressed for a while because experiencing mystically Gods love in heaven and then coming back to normality can do that. So lets look in context what St. Thomas meant. Throughout his life Thomas had several mystical experiences . St. Thomas sought the true ,good and beautiful and realized that you cannot put into human words the complete beauty and truth and goodness about God in many ways. That is why he said what he did towards the end of his life about his works. But Christ verified his works and studies so Thomas would not throw them to the curb or consider them wrong or useless.

Remember he did not rely on his knowledge of philosophy alone or theology but rather submitted himself entirely to Christ Jesus when he would weekly prostrate himself in front of the crucifix and bang his head on the tabernacle containing the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist asking Christ for His wisdom and knowledge and guidance in truth on these doctrines. And lets also not forget Christ Jesus also gave him several confirmations supernaturally that he was doing well in understanding His truth as Jesus himself appeared to St. Thomas(as witnesses by others) confirming him that he has done well in explaining the Eucharistic reality of transubstantiation with his philosophy and reason and that is just as one example.

 

[Winken]

[disregard]

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

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?

My only thought is that the Lord commanded us to love Him with our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Reason is necessary to define the faith against heresies, as was done in the Ecumenical councils. Mysticism is also necessary, as there is a huge difference between knowing God and knowing about God.

When reason adds innovations to the faith, there is a problem. When mysticism allows for heresy, there is a problem. Like most things in life, both must be kept in balance.

 

[thecolorsblend]

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.

My gripe with the charismatic Protestant stuff is what I perceive to be a tendency to play up the mystical without any particular focus. It's fine to celebrate the mysteries. Indeed I believe we should do just that. But there's a focus to the mysteries even if there's not always specificity. Speaking only for myself, I fail to see how randomly speaking in tongues that theoretically more than half the assembled congregation cannot understand benefits anybody. And this is not to speak of how undignified I find a lot of charismatic worship to be. I do not mean this to be offensive to you or your history; I'm merely speaking my own opinion without trying to castigate anybody.

The above remarks could as easily (and maybe more aptly) be applied to the Emergents, where the mystical and the subjective are more or less all you can expect to receive. There's literally no cohesion or intellectual engagement. I shall revisit this momentarily.

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.

I can quite understand why.

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?

At least in the US I think there's been entirely too much emphasis on rational thought. It's led to a sort of bizarre situation where people, especially my dimwitted generation, claim to be grounded and materialist (in the philosophical sense) on the one hand but vaguely spiritual in a very non-specific type of way. Nobody seems to notice or much comment upon the neurotic disconnect there.

Christianity is all about a mystical encounter with and subsequent transformation by God. Christianity inherently wants to be a mystical conversion but America's fixation with rationalism creates something of a cultural barrier to that. In my experience this tends to be less of a problem in the Catholic Church as the Mass centers on an inexplicable mystery in the Eucharist. The mystical facets of Christianity are inescapable in the Mass.

So my point is I view the Catholic Church as a natural bulwark against a tendency toward too great a dependence on rationalism by simple virtue of what it is.

Now, I think you know my views concerning intellectual engagement in the faith based upon our conversations in OBOB. I don't look down my nose at the Church's intellectual beauty. Indeed how could I? But there is a beautiful, mystical and otherworldly dimension to Christianity in general, the Mass in particular and the Eucharist specifically that you and I ought to be sensitive to, whatever our more academic interests might be.

For whatever it's worth, this is something I didn't have as full an awareness of until I began attending the Traditional Latin Mass, which has the strange ability to be as rigidly intellectual and rationalistic as anybody could possibly need while simultaneously being transcendentally mystical from start to finish. And yet it's somehow accessible to all people of all ages in all places. Try figuring that one out.

 

[gordonhooker]

Respectfully snipped for brevity....

For whatever it's worth, this is something I didn't have as full an awareness of until I began attending the Traditional Latin Mass, which has the strange ability to be as rigidly intellectual and rationalistic as anybody could possibly need while simultaneously being transcendentally mystical from start to finish. And yet it's somehow accessible to all people of all ages in all places. Try figuring that one out.

That's the mystical thing.... we don't need to figure it out... I am Franciscan mystic who attends an Anglican Church and have attended the Mass with my RC Franciscan brothers and sisters - the mystery is the same at both...

there is saying that comes out of the perennial tradition which states that "what is true here, is true everywhere"...

 

[DanSeeker1]

OP, if you were to experience the mystical and spiritual aspects of the world, you wouldn't be asking this question.

The Charismatics are not mystical.

Have to keep in mind any religion is about dealing with the world of spirit(s) in prescribed manner. Meaning? You are dealing with an aspect of reality that is beyond reason, or emotion or refuses to be easily defined.

 

[~Anastasia~]

OP, if you were to experience the mystical and spiritual aspects of the world, you wouldn't be asking this question.

The Charismatics are not mystical.

Have to keep in mind any religion is about dealing with the world of spirit(s) in prescribed manner. Meaning? You are dealing with an aspect of reality that is beyond reason, or emotion or refuses to be easily defined.

Hi DanSeeker!

Welcome to CF and to TT! I hope that you are blessed by being here.

 

[mark46]

It is not rational to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Believing in the other miracles of the NT is not rational.

Believing that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is not rational.

As someone noted, reducing the faith to the rational leaves us with a wonderful moral code, one that Jefferson found compelling.
=========

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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?

 

[mark46]

Funny, I just talking about this with my wife today, on the way home from church (PCA). Rather than rational, I would say ordinary. Christianity is best when it's not hysterical, mystical, super-spiritual, jargon-filled.

This is the beauty of Christianity. It's NOT religion. It's not only reachable by some special few with special knowledge (gnostic) it was "not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26)

Everyday things like bread, wine and water. Nothing mystical about it (unless you are a Roman Catholic).

We help the cause of Christ when we lose the mysticism.

What you say is true. However, I would note that mystics do not reject this reality.