The Christian of the Future Will Either Be a Mystic or Cease to Be.

[Akita Suggagaki]

Quite possibly but many church going people are there looking to have their everyday lives justified. Interest in God to them is better served by showing them God's will for a decent life rather than experiencing Him. But the Scripture is clear in saying we are to continually seek God, even when we think we have found Him, so it remains a series of stages in life and some settle down early.

You just reminded me of Fowlers stages of faith. And makes me wonder about experience as catalyst for progression through those stages. And that now reminds me of Maslow's Peak Experiences and the role they might play.

 

[public hermit]

God is not limited in the means he uses to bring anyone to saving faith.

Yeah, I agree with you. Patchett's testimony is remarkable.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The quote: "The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic,’ one who has experienced ‘something,’ or he will cease to be anything at all." Karl Rahner

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

First, for those wanting to know (as I did), the quote comes from the 23-volume set of Karl Rahner's Theological Investigations, translated by David J. Bourke (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971), specifically page 15 of the seventh volume ("Christian Living Formerly and Today"). Keeping in mind that "mysticism" is a loaded concept, Rahner said, "it could be said [that] the devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic’—one who has ‘experienced’ something—or he will cease to be anything at all."

In my opinion, Brian Zahnd astutely captured in one of his sermons (05:00–07:12) what Rahner was saying here, namely, that the tsunami of secularism will be survived not by clever apologetics or waging misguided culture wars or pining away for an irretrievable past but by being a person who has had their own mystical experience with God. (I am not saying that either Zahnd or Rahner are correct, nor am I endorsing Zahnd's views.)

Second, how far in the future did Rahner mean? After all, he made that statement more than half a century ago. I know plenty of Christians (and I include myself) who possess more than just a personal experience with God, whose faith also consists of truth, reason, and knowledge—what Zahnd pejoratively referred to as "clever apologetics"—whose faith is able to withstand scrutiny as more than "mere opinion," standing firm in a Christ-mandated culture war. Perhaps the early 21st century is not yet future enough? For I am more than a mystic, and I have not ceased to be anything at all.

Is the devout Christian—a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence—a mere believer in dogma or simply someone with an opinion?

That might be a false dilemma. I can think of a third option: A devout Christian can be a believer in dogma and have an opinion, but also possess a faith that consists of truth and knowledge.

 

[Hmm]

I think you NEED to let Steven speak for himself before attempting to coming to his aid... It would be the better hermeneutical thing to do where exegesis of Steven's meaning is of interest.

Otherwise, it appears like you're reaching for some kind of answer that doesn't fit the actuality or the context of this thread. And to do so would be an "ignorant" thing to do. It's also called sophistry and syncretism. As the first lines of the article you pulled from Christianity Today nicely state--and in application to yourself:

The greatest protection from error is knowing the truth. “What you do not know will not hurt you”—this does not apply to the Christian and his Bible. Much more applicable is Alexander Pope’s dictum, “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.” Error stems from ignorance and superficial knowledge.​

So, I recommend that you avoid that kind of thing. It makes Universalism look bad, and I know you guys are wanting to sell it as best you can, even with a little learning.

Just listen to yourself my friend \_(ツ)_/¯

 

[dqhall]

Quote from the book:

"The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard."

“Talk does not cook rice.“ Chinese proverb

 

[timothyu]

And makes me wonder about experience as catalyst for progression through those stages.

Absolutely. I myself experienced Him, what as of now, was only a quarter way into my life. There was a lot to learn and still learn after that even though I found Him. Interestingl,y I found him after searching three quarters of my life to that point.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Absolutely. I myself experienced Him, what as of now, was only a quarter way into my life. There was a lot to learn and still learn after that even though I found Him. Interestingl,y I found him after searching three quarters of my life to that point.

DialecticSkeptic reminds me that we also need to interpret our experience. And we best do that in community that is usually held together by specific teachings. But we always have to remember that the teachings can only point. They are not ends in themselves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just listen to yourself my friend \_(ツ)_/¯

Nah. That would be way too boring.

 

[ARBITER01]

The quote: "The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic,’ one who has experienced ‘something,’ or he will cease to be anything at all." Karl Rahner

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

I think he forgets that there will be people who are chosen and those who are called. An example of a chosen individual would be Paul, how Jesus interacted with him in a more direct way.

I wouldn't call that being a mystic (which I view as just a worldly term), just one who GOD is very present in their lives, everyday.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Lutheran in me has an apprehension to the word "mystic" as the word is often abused to speak of an unmediated encounter with God in an esoteric sense. Rather the encounter with God is by His grace through Word and Sacrament. It is an encounter with grace, an encounter with the Gospel. Rather than speaking of a direct experience with God (apart from God's work and word), it may be more helpful to speak of an awareness of grace. Even a very profound awareness of grace.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Wow. What an interesting OP and topic, thanks.

So, what makes a Christian mystic?

I think it requires a commitment to prayer, to loving one’s neighbor, and to the doctrine of the Apostolic faith as recorded in the Nicene Creed, and the other main ecumenical councils, particularly Constantinople and Ephesus, and either the Second Council of Nicaea or the equivalent Oriental Orthodox rejection of iconoclasm.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think it requires a commitment to prayer, to loving one’s neighbor, and to the doctrine of the Apostolic faith as recorded in the Nicene Creed, and the other main ecumenical councils, particularly Constantinople and Ephesus, and either the Second Council of Nicaea or the equivalent Oriental Orthodox rejection of iconoclasm.

Thanks. That's informative, but doesn't seem very mystic.
@public hermit was thinking it had more to do with seeking the divine presence. I hope I didn't butcher what he said. Correction requested.

Perhaps what you are saying is that typically those considered Christian Mystics today came from this direction?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The quote: "The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic,’ one who has experienced ‘something,’ or he will cease to be anything at all." Karl Rahner

The idea is fairly simple: In a world where dogmatic claims amount to little more than mere opinion, unless one has experienced God, their claims are subject to a scrutiny under which they cannot survive except as mere opinion.

Is the devout Christian a mystic who relies on the experience of God's presence, a mere believer in dogma, or simply someone with an opinion?

Is the devout Christian a mystic? ... I can't really say I know, to be honest.

 

[public hermit]

Is the devout Christian a mystic? ... I can't really say I know, to be honest.

So many have been, yes. It depends on how one defines Christian mysticism. I think Bernard McGinn's def is good.

[T]hat part, or element, of Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of God.

Christian mysticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So many Christians have pursued and experienced a more direct experience. Folks that immediately come to mind: Augustine and Monica at Ostia, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, the desert fathers and mothers, John Cassian, John Scotus Eruigena, Bernard of Clairvaux, Meister Eckhart, Gregory Palamas, Julian of Norwich, Simone Weil, Thomas Merton, the list goes on. But I think many Christians want that deeper experience, particularly in prayer. There's a long tradition(s) in Christianity that is too often neglected, especially by Protestants, unfortunately.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So many have been, yes. It depends on how one defines Christian mysticism. I think Bernard McGinn's def is good.

[T]hat part, or element, of Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of God.

Christian mysticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So many Christians have pursued and experienced a more direct experience. Folks that immediately come to mind: Augustine and Monica at Ostia, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, the desert fathers and mothers, John Cassian, John Scotus Eruigena, Bernard of Clairvaux, Meister Eckhart, Gregory Palamas, Julian of Norwich, Simone Weil, Thomas Merton, the list goes on. But I think many Christians want that deeper experience, particularly in prayer. There's a long tradition(s) in Christianity that is too often neglected, especially by Protestants, unfortunately.

Yeah, you're right. There's a lot that's either neglected or ignored by many "Christian" folks, whether they're Protestant or otherwise.

Unfortunately for me, even though I've always read about Christian mystics in the history books, even where Pascal is concerned, I've never been privy to any form of sublime, transcendent sense of enrapturement or direct spiritual rapport.

I think it's great that some people feel they're mystics, but I need to qualify what I've stated earlier in this thread. It's probably too much to say that the future of Christianity is dependent upon any form of mysticism, although I'm sure it can be helpful to further one's spiritual motivation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Lutheran in me is always uneasy with the term "mystic". In the history of the Reformation one of the most problematic issues that showed up was the false teaching of Enthusiasm. The strongest form of Enthusiasm I can think of was that of Thomas Müntzer.

And it is this dichotomy, the external word vs the internal experience that is of serious consideration and consequence.

To rely on the internal experience rather than the external word turns the Christian away from God's objective means of grace, away from God's objective Self-Disclosure to us in time and history and in the here and now of the Church through Word and Sacrament is, fundamentally, to turn away from God as God Himself would be known and toward self-made religions and spiritualities. It is, at its heart, the distinction between true worship and idolatry.

A mysticism that is internalized as direct experience of the Spirit--aka Enthusiasm--is, from a Lutheran POV, diabolical. Literally. This isn't to deny internal dimensions of the Christian life. But proper Christian "mysticality" is external, God's Mysteries, namely Word and Sacrament. Mystery as in God Revelatus, not something secret whereby man tries to know God in His Hiddenness (God Absconditus). The heart of the Christian faith is God-Revealed, not God-Hidden. God revealed in the Person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord, and His plan of redemption, His revealed counsel and will unveiled in Jesus, the Good News of His love for us through Christ who gave His life for us, and through whom we have mystical union with God as grace plainly seen and given.

The Christian life is something given from outside of ourselves, publicly, visibly, tangibly, externally; not in something to be discovered from within. It is a life that comes extra nos, from outside of ourselves, by grace; this faith we receive is a gift from God in which the Christian can confidently believe in what God has said and done. That is the Mystery of Christian life--life from God, given from God, Grace.

So much of what is contrived as "mystical", at least in the present times, is an esoteric, internalized, even occult spirituality--of finding the divine from within, of meeting God within myself--that to know myself is to know God. But I am not where God is found, I am the antithesis of God because of my sin, in my mortality, in the total estrangement of myself by my passions from God and thus my need of grace to reconcile me to God, and give me what I have not: Life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

The Lutheran in me has an apprehension to the word "mystic" as the word is often abused to speak of an unmediated encounter with God in an esoteric sense.

Maybe from a Lutheran Scholastic viewpoint, mysticism is "bad", but Lutherans have written about mysticism (Rudolph Otto) and there have been Lutheran mystics (Jakob Boehme, Emmanuel Swedenborg, being the most well-known). But institutional Lutheranism itself has mostly marginalized them.

So many have been, yes. It depends on how one defines Christian mysticism. I think Bernard McGinn's def is good.

[T]hat part, or element, of Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of God.

Christian mysticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So many Christians have pursued and experienced a more direct experience. Folks that immediately come to mind: Augustine and Monica at Ostia, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, the desert fathers and mothers, John Cassian, John Scotus Eruigena, Bernard of Clairvaux, Meister Eckhart, Gregory Palamas, Julian of Norwich, Simone Weil, Thomas Merton, the list goes on. But I think many Christians want that deeper experience, particularly in prayer. There's a long tradition(s) in Christianity that is too often neglected, especially by Protestants, unfortunately.

Howard Thurman was a well-known African-American Baptist theologian and mystic, and he's been generally overlooked. He was influenced by the Quaker theologian, Rufus Jones, and the 17th century writings of the Lutheran mystic, Jakob Boehme. Thurman met with Gandhi and then experienced a vision at the Khyber Pass in northern India, where he was inspired to set up an interfaith, desegregated church in San Francisco. He was influential in the early Civil Rights movement, writing the book, Jesus and the Disinherited. There are still many of his sermons on Youtube.

I like Thurman's religious thought because he sees Jesus' mission as speaking to people who are marginalized, to help them find dignity in a world that denies their personhood. I was reminded that yesterday with the Gospel reading of the woman at the well.

 

[Andrewn]

The Lutheran in me is always uneasy with the term "mystic". In the history of the Reformation one of the most problematic issues that showed up was the false teaching of Enthusiasm.

Enthusiasm is one of the possible translations of the Greek "theoria"/contemplation. Is Lutheranism against all types of contemplation?

The strongest form of Enthusiasm I can think of was that of Thomas Müntzer.

"By March 1522, Müntzer was writing to Melanchthon in Wittenberg, warning that 'our most beloved Martin acts ignorantly because he does not want to offend the little ones... Dear brothers, leave your dallying, the time has come! Do not delay, summer is at the door. ... Do not flatter your princes; otherwise you will live to see your undoing.'"

Was Muntzer's prediction fulfilled in WWII?

 

[FireDragon76]

You just reminded me of Fowlers stages of faith. And makes me wonder about experience as catalyst for progression through those stages. And that now reminds me of Maslow's Peak Experiences and the role they might play.

John Vervaeke suggests that repeated experiences of states of flow contribute to the propensity to mystical experiences.

Yeah, you're right. There's a lot that's either neglected or ignored by many "Christian" folks, whether they're Protestant or otherwise.

Unfortunately for me, even though I've always read about Christian mystics in the history books, even where Pascal is concerned, I've never been privy to any form of sublime, transcendent sense of enrapturement or direct spiritual rapport.

I think it's great that some people feel they're mystics, but I need to qualify what I've stated earlier in this thread. It's probably too much to say that the future of Christianity is dependent upon any form of mysticism, although I'm sure it can be helpful to further one's spiritual motivation.

Clare Grave's theory of human development posits that future human civilization will be oriented around values rooted in mysticism, rather than rationality, a level of human development he called integral, because it integrates all previous stages of human development. We can see intimations of this in the movement away from postmodernism into metamodernism, though metamodernism hasn't really crystalized yet. Only a small percentage of human beings in the US are operating at a metamodern or integral level, about three percent. About a quarter to a third have postmodern or world-centric values (the Beatles exemplify this in their music), and a sizeable number have traditional or even ego-centered values.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think Eastern religions can interpret atonement in terms of karma. Jesus took on our bad karma.

I think it would be easier to understand in terms of Christus Victor themes, from an eastern religious perspective. There are Buddhist folk stories in China of divine princesses, like Miaoshan, descending to Hell and upsetting the order of things with her splendor. There's also the very orthodox story of Ksitigarbha, whose name means "Earth Womb". He is a benevolent figures that lives in the underworld, one of the Woeful Planes (sometimes called "Hell" in English).

East Asians have sometimes found Jesus death puzzling to understand as salvific in substitutionary terms. Some commentators thought he died because of his own bad karma, like the death of the Holy Innocents, in fact.