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

[~Anastasia~]

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.

This is exactly what I was thinking of earlier today, albeit in response to a slightly different question.

If one cannot accept ANYthing about Christianity that defies reason, then what one is left with is not exactly the same Gospel, and indeed, requires no God at all. I've always wondered if one could even reasonably believe in any form of life after death in that case.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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

Yes. Agreed. My reply was quick, and I might not be able to articulate my thoughts very well on this subject, as I haven't spoken about it much or read anything on it. Good topic, though.

The evangelical church is filled with gnosticism and mysticism, it seems. When Christians are asked to explain their faith they talk mainly about inward things, emotions, feelings. . . Truth, faith, even Christ are internalized and subjective. People speak of "my personal faith", or "my personal relationship with Jesus", or being on a "faith journey", all things of which cannot be debated or proven right or wrong. If one dares question any of these experiences or beliefs, they are immediately met with, "God looks on the heart", "don't judge me", or worse, "this is true for me". Mysticism and post-modern relativism go hand in hand. The truth is whatever we want it to be. . .

This madness can also be seen in the way that people read the Bible. They read themselves into any and every story! This narcigesis can be found everywhere. Even people who are fairly conservative Christians talk more about the "word" that God gave them, rather than THE WORD which God has given us.

Mystics are attempting to gain God through experience; however, we meet God in His Word. We don't disengage our minds, rather, just the opposite, we are transformed by the renewing of our minds by His word.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes. Agreed. My reply was quick, and I might not be able to articulate my thoughts very well on this subject, as I haven't spoken about it much or read anything on it. Good topic, though.

The evangelical church is filled with gnosticism and mysticism, it seems. When Christians are asked to explain their faith they talk mainly about inward things, emotions, feelings. . . Truth, faith, even Christ are internalized and subjective. People speak of "my personal faith", or "my personal relationship with Jesus", or being on a "faith journey", all things of which cannot be debated or proven right or wrong. If one dares question any of these experiences or beliefs, they are immediately met with, "God looks on the heart", "don't judge me", or worse, "this is true for me". Mysticism and post-modern relativism go hand in hand. The truth is whatever we want it to be. . .

This madness can also be seen in the way that people read the Bible. They read themselves into any and every story! This narcigesis can be found everywhere. Even people who are fairly conservative Christians talk more about the "word" that God gave them, rather than THE WORD which God has given us.

Mystics are attempting to gain God through experience; however, we meet God in His Word. We don't disengage our minds, rather, just the opposite, we are transformed by the renewing of our minds by His word.

You make some extremely good points.

Funny, I was discussing parts of this just a few minutes ago with someone.

And FTR, I probably should refrain from using the words mystic/mystical/mysticism outside of my own tradition since it has been made clear to me that it is very possible that others interpret the words differently.

(And I know you weren't talking to me, I just wanted to comment that you'd made some very good points.)


(Although in response to your earlier post, I should add that it is not only the Catholics who believe in a mystery involved in the Eucharist. Unless you meant to comment on the specific doctrines they have concerning transubstantiation)

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You make some extremely good points.

Funny, I was discussing parts of this just a few minutes ago with someone.

And FTR, I probably should refrain from using the words mystic/mystical/mysticism outside of my own tradition since it has been made clear to me that it is very possible that others interpret the words differently.

(And I know you weren't talking to me, I just wanted to comment that you'd made some very good points.)

Thanks. I am babbling, but I'm glad that I made at least one point.

I almost stated at the end of my post that I was going a little outside of actual mysticism in my post; however, I do so because I think that these things are related.

Defining terms is a good idea. I like this definition: "Christian mysticism aspires to apprehend spiritual truths inaccessible through intellectual means".

 

[Soyeong]

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?

Luke 10:27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

We are to love God with all of our mind, so we should always take a rational approach to Christianity, but that is not to say the mystical side of faith is irrational. We have faith only because we have been given reason to have faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks. I am babbling, but I'm glad that I made at least one point.

I almost stated at the end of my post that I was going a little outside of actual mysticism in my post; however, I do so because I think that these things are related.

Defining terms is a good idea. I like this definition: "Christian mysticism aspires to apprehend spiritual truths inaccessible through intellectual means".

I agree that definitions are good. But I'm not sure we can reach a consensus without defining our terms we use in definitions and even discussing them a bit.

On the one hand, I can agree with your definition of mysticism and apply it to the sort that is approved by the Orthodox Church. We might experience God, by His grace. And that is not through the intellect, per se (there is much written on the intellect, the nous, and so on as well, LOL - it gets complicated). And in that sense, I can approve mysticism.

However, one can take the very same definition and apply it to, say, a process of "spiritual fishing" where one opens up and goes seeking a spiritual experience, through which one aspires to either truths or experiences themselves, as a goal - ah, I am not saying this well, but let's just say it's something I've seen done in a very un-discerning way in certain denominations, where the experience itself is the goal. And that is NOT what I would call mysticism, but if it is what is meant, I would whole-heartedly recommend avoiding it.

I'm not trying to be difficult. But I think you gave examples in your post that I could identify with, and so it was quite easy to agree with you.

 

[mark46]

Thanks. I am babbling, but I'm glad that I made at least one point.

I almost stated at the end of my post that I was going a little outside of actual mysticism in my post; however, I do so because I think that these things are related.

Defining terms is a good idea. I like this definition: "Christian mysticism aspires to apprehend spiritual truths inaccessible through intellectual means".

Thank you for clarifying. I see no relationship between Christian mysticism and the gnosticism of some evangelicals and relativists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Thank you for clarifying. I see no relationship between Christian mysticism and the gnosticism of some evangelicals and relativists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is the relationship. Mysticism leads to gnosticism. Here's why. Mysticism is experiential "knowledge" that is internal and personal. It can't be proved or disproved, yet it is presented thusly: "The Lord spoke to me", or "I've received a word from the Lord". . . The disconnect from rational and public Christianity is replaced with mystical and "private" christianity.

I don't believe this can be said of the way the Orthodox Church would use the word "mysticism". Indeed, for all or nearly all those practicing it, their experiences are (or should be) submitted to their spiritual guides for exactly the purpose of disproving, if need be. Skepticism and discernment is far safer than wholesale acceptance and definitely safer than attempts to induce "experiences" for the sake of the experience itself (but as human beings we can certainly get drawn into that easily).

Charismatics/Pentecostals do tend to lack this oversight, generally speaking, and don't even see it as necessary or even beneficial, so in speaking of that "style" of mysticism, your concern is well-placed, IMO. You could expand on further connections as well (and I'm guessing you probably have already, to have reached this conclusion).

Sorry, but for the sake of defining terms. And the focus, expectation, methods, effects, etc. are different as well.

 

[Cappadocious]

Mysticism is experiential "knowledge" that is internal and personal. It can't be proved or disproved

Mysticism does not have to be internal. And what is external is personal too. You are reading modern views on internal/external back onto Christianity.

 

[mark46]

There is no greater example of mysticism than the mass and the Eucharist.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

There is no greater example of mysticism than the mass and the Eucharist.

 

[mark46]

Yes. I agree. Both are irrational and without scriptural basis.

If I had said that there is nothing more mystical than Christian worship and receiving Jesus at the Lord's Table, would you have responded in the same way?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

ROFL

If I had said that there is nothing more mystical than Christian worship and receiving Jesus at the Lord's Table, would you have responded in the same way?

 

[mark46]

No, but you are both a Roman Catholic and Democrat, so it wouldn't be a very rational discusion, so I'll refrain. I'm too tired. You win.

So your post has nothing to with content, only with labels. For you, the Eucharist is a travesty, and the Lord's Table is an ordinance.

My Baptist mentor had no problem at all calling the Lord's Table by the name of eucharist or thanksgiving. He also had no problem calling the Lord's Table a mystery (the Greek word) or sacrament (the Latin word).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Also please note - it is against rules to address the character of a poster rather than the content of a post - but I did not want to post two hats at the same time.

 

[stephen583]

For since the creation of the world God's invisible (mystical) qualities, his eternal power and divine nature have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood from WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that people are WITHOUT EXCUSE" (Romans 1:20, NIV).

There is the Scriptural answer to your question. Absolutely. We are supposed to RECOGNIZE and SEE the invisible "mystical" nature of God. We do so by understanding God through observing reality, (What Has Been Made). In point of fact, discernment through observation is a fundamental principle of science. It's called, the "scientific method". That's what Sir Issac Newton was demonstrating when he dropped an apple and watched it fall to the ground. A force, (gravity) was acting on the apple. Therefore gravity must (exist).

"Science without religion is LAME, religion without science is BLIND" (Albert Einstein).

 

[fhansen]

Having also spent time in the pentecostal/charismatic camp, I'd attest to the fact that the "mysticism" there is virtually pure flesh-driven, not mystical at all, and as such tends to make a mockery of the faith. At the same time I thoroughly believe that God can and has granted mystical experiences or revelations down through the centuries, if relatively rarely, for His purposes.

And God is also the source-and locus-of reason, a faculty He's given us which is central in our ability to come to know and love Him. We should always look to exhaust all the rational approaches to knowing God that we can while never forgetting that He's beyond mere reason and all of our human efforts to know Him-and only by grace can that happen to any truly satisfactory degree. And this is why even our faith, itself, is mystical, because it's beyond our own ability to produce, and is itself a dim foretaste of the knowledge we'll have when we finally see God "face to face".

 

[hedrick]

A lot of us think of mystical as representing the tradition that tries for out of body experience and mystical ascent. I don’t think that’s what all participants here mean. They may well mean what I’d refer to as spiritual.

John Calvin is the founder of the Presbyterian tradition. For him, the center of Christianity was what he referred to as the “mystical union” (“unio mystica’) with Christ. I believe he was referring to the sort of thing described in Rom 6:5. It’s interesting to note that the section on the atonement in the Institutes begins with this orientation. For him the atonement is based, at least in part, on Christ’s obedience, which we experience though our union with Christ in faith. Yes, he uses pretty much every model of the atonement, including the infamous penal substitution. But that’s not where he starts.

But I don’t think Calvin is what one would normally think of as a mystic.

 

[fhansen]

But I don’t think Calvin is what one would normally think of as a mystic.

Somehow I bet you hit that one on the head, Hedrick.