What exactly is "Christian Mysticism"?

[jimmyjimmy]

More evidence of a misunderstanding about the nature of Christian mysticism. But neither do I want to leave you with the impression that I am enamored with mysticism or with the people who have been called Christian mystics. I'm not. But OTOH, it's not the case that all of them were heretics, unorthodox, or religious rebels, let alone Gnostics.

My view of gnosticism is broad. I'm looking at the heart of what drove/drives it, and I see mysticism as a form of it. The essence is the same. Take for instance the dualistic nature of gnosticism. Flesh/physical bad. Spirit good. Mystics have a very similar idea. They seek to be "transported" to a nonphysical place in mind/spirit in which to advance and escape.

Chew on it. You're a sharp guy.

 

[Rajni]

My view of gnosticism is broad. I'm looking at the heart of what drove/drives it, and I see mysticism as a form of it. The essence is the same. Take for instance the dualistic nature of gnosticism. Flesh/physical bad. Spirit good. Mystics have a very similar idea. They seek to be "transported" to a nonphysical place in mind/spirit in which to advance and escape.

You mean like 2 Corinthians 5:8, where Paul states "Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord"?

It seems he didn't have a high view of the flesh either, according to Philippians 1:21-24, Romans 7:18, Romans 8:2-6, Romans 8:13, Galatians 5:16-17, Galatians 6:8-9, and Ephesians 2:3

ETA: Speaking of being transported to a nonphysical place in which to advance and escape, there's also the whole "rapture" thing...

 

[Albion]

My view of gnosticism is broad. I'm looking at the heart of what drove/drives it, and I see mysticism as a form of it. The essence is the same. Take for instance the dualistic nature of gnosticism. Flesh/physical bad. Spirit good. Mystics have a very similar idea. They seek to be "transported" to a nonphysical place in mind/spirit in which to advance and escape.

Chew on it. You're a sharp guy.

Having chewed on it, I like seeing the several equivocations in that statement. Now begin to think of mysticism, rather than Gnosticism, as broad, and you'll be just about there.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Mysticism is the attempt at becoming one with God through meditation, ecstasy, altered consciousness, or other disciplines or practices that manipulate or change one’s state of mind, and it looks the same in the various religions it's practiced in (which is telling).

However, Christianity insists on the death of its adherents. We go through the cross - through our own death, in order to live. This is the very intentional way in which God designed it. It stops us in our tracks from our innate desire to advance ourselves into His good graces rather than allow Christ's work to do for us what we simply cannot do for ourselves, through faith.

The climax of God's self-revelation is Christ. Seeking some "spiritual" experience other than this is to deny Him. God has revealed Himself in Christ. He is not hidden. He is not demanding anything other than faith, yet faith is the most difficult thing to ask of any man, as we all seek self-salvation. We can't tolerate the dependent state in which we find ourselves, so we seek to "fix" our own problems by and through our own efforts.

Christian mysticism competes with the gospel of Christ. By seeking to add to the gospel, mystics end up subtracting from it.

He has provided a Way. That Way is a person not a practice.

 

[Albion]

Mysticism is the attempt at becoming one with God through meditation, ecstasy, altered consciousness, or other disciplines or practices that manipulate or change one’s state of mind, and it looks the same in the various religions it's practiced in (which is telling).

However, Christianity insists on the death of its adherents. We go through the cross - through our own death, in order to live. This is the very intentional way in which God designed it. It stops us in our tracks from our innate desire to advance ourselves into His good graces rather than allow Christ's work to do for us what we simply cannot do for ourselves, through faith.

This is where I think your assessment goes wrong. The intimate connection thing is right, but it doesn't require departing from conventional Christian doctrine otherwise (as many Christian mystics of history demonstrate).

 

[fhansen]

I'm referring to Christian mysticism in the tradition of Teresa of Avila and the likes.

I'm talking about the ones that originate in the LATE medieval period. If it's over 2,000 years old, it's probably not the same thing we're talking about.

Paul's experience on the road to Damascus fits perfectly with the kinds of experiences described by Christian mystics. The term "mystic" is a bit problematic though, as nowadays it automatically sounds to us like "new age mumbo jumbo" as one poster put it, or having a magical, eerie connotation. But the term as it has been traditionally used only refers to the extra-ordinary nature of these experiences-the fact that they are simply beyond the realm of everyday experience, and beyond our ability to obtain on our own, without grace, without God IOW.

They are practical while incomparably profound revelations or contacts with God given at His discretion and for His purposes. They may or may not be sought, but can never be achieved by normal human capacities. And they never contradict, but can only support, true Christian doctrine, the revelation once for all given us by the incarnation of Christ.

They should always be looked upon with healthy skepticism at first-there are many bogus claims out there. But they are entirely possible (since nothing is impossible with God, of course), and have, in fact, occurred.

Again, these experiences are not granted without some purpose, of advancing God's kingdom in some way, and would never be given to any but the most humble and faithful of heart, unless the purpose might first of all be to to soften and break a hardened, arrogant heart perhaps as a part of the plan.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This is where I think your assessment goes wrong. The intimate connection thing is right, but it doesn't require departing from conventional Christian doctrine otherwise (as many Christian mystics of history demonstrate).

Still waiting for the list.

 

[fhansen]

Mysticism is the attempt at becoming one with God through meditation, ecstasy, altered consciousness, or other disciplines or practices that manipulate or change one’s state of mind, and it looks the same in the various religions it's practiced in (which is telling).

However, Christianity insists on the death of its adherents. We go through the cross - through our own death, in order to live. This is the very intentional way in which God designed it. It stops us in our tracks from our innate desire to advance ourselves into His good graces rather than allow Christ's work to do for us what we simply cannot do for ourselves, through faith.

The climax of God's self-revelation is Christ. Seeking some "spiritual" experience other than this is to deny Him. God has revealed Himself in Christ. He is not hidden. He is not demanding anything other than faith, yet faith is the most difficult thing to ask of any man, as we all seek self-salvation. We can't tolerate the dependent state in which we find ourselves, so we seek to "fix" our own problems by and through our own efforts.

Christian mysticism competes with the gospel of Christ. By seeking to add to the gospel, mystics end up subtracting from it.

He has provided a Way. That Way is a person not a practice.

This is speculation. Faith, itself, is a mystical experience in that it is beyond our natural ability to possess, and is thus necessarily a supernatural gift. It infuses and confirms knowledge and trust with a level of assurance and conviction that we cannot realize on our own. And that, in fact, is why Christians are so often mocked and held in suspicion-for "irrationally" believing in a cosmic fairy tale.

 

[Shempster]

He has provided a Way. That Way is a person not a practice.

THAT statement sort of nails what true mysticism is!
Yes, the WAY is a person....Yeshua the messiah. And he asked the Father to make us all "one" with him like he is "one" with the Father. "One" meaning likeness of nature. Having Christ IN you cannot be obtained through any practice of church teaching. It is a spiritual, or hidden, or secret experience that cannot really even be properly explained to another person.
I can only say this having gone through three major phases. Sinner, Christian church believer and finally oneness with God. I know that term "oneness" sounds new-agey, but it is the correct term to use.

Many people get all bent out of shape about terminology of things. Meditation can mean putting ones self into a trance but it can also mean quiet reflection on the things of God.
Mysticism is just a word. It means many things to many people. I used to think it was a new age deception, and you know what? It is....to the person who wants some spiritual experience apart from the living God. But to those who know Him, they don't get to ruffled over mere words.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"One" meaning likeness of nature.

No. That's not the meaning.

Christ IN you cannot be obtained through any practice of church teaching

Yes. It can.

 

[Rajni]

The intimate connection thing is right, but it doesn't require departing from conventional Christian doctrine otherwise (as many Christian mystics of history demonstrate).

Still waiting for the list.

Here ya go: Influential Christian mystics

 

[SusanD.]

More evidence of a misunderstanding about the nature of Christian mysticism. But neither do I want to leave you with the impression that I am enamored with mysticism or with the people who have been called Christian mystics. I'm not. But OTOH, it's not the case that all of them were heretics, unorthodox, or religious rebels, let alone Gnostics.

Hi.
From the bits of research/reading I have done, those who started out from a traditional church background who got into mysticism did in fact go into heresy. If we think as Christians that we can just borrow practices from Hinduism and Buddhism and expect that to not influence our Biblical worldview, this is somewhat naïve. I will give you one example:- heard of the writer Sue Monk Kidd? She started out in a Bible-preaching Baptist church, taught in Sunday School, was introduced to a book on mysticism, began to doubt the veracity of the Holy Bible, and now is in a very different place spiritually. Here is a quote from her:-

"Deity means that divinity will no longer be only heavenly ... It will also be right here, right now, in me, in the earth, in this river, in excrement and roses alike."
Book: by Sue Monk Kidd entitled: The Dance of the Dissident Daughter, op. cit.,
p. 160 Published: 1st January 2007.
This quote shows that the writer moved from the Biblical belief in God as Creator, distinct from His creation, which she would have heard and taught in her former church, into a worldview of panentheism (god is in everything).
Still think that getting into mysticism doesn't lead to heresy?

 

[Albion]

Hi.
From the bits of research/reading I have done, those who started out from a traditional church background who got into mysticism did in fact go into heresy.

Of course there are some, but I'd recommend googling a list of Catholic saints for the other side of that mysticism story.

I had been reluctant to post such biographies myself because I knew that someone would think that I was arguing for Catholicism when, in fact, the point was that mysticism can be either heretical or orthodox. The histories of such figures as St. John of the Cross, St. Clare, and St. Catherine of Siena demonstrate the point.

If we think as Christians that we can just borrow practices from Hinduism and Buddhism and expect that to not influence our Biblical worldview, this is somewhat naïve.

That's why you need to look deeper into this subject.

 

[Rajni]

This quote shows that the writer moved from the Biblical belief in God as Creator, distinct from His creation, which she would have heard and taught in her former church, into a worldview of panentheism (god is in everything).

I'm not sure how that's a heresy, though I'll admit it depends on who one talks to.

If God is, indeed, omnipresent, then that would include Him being in everything.

"Where could I go to escape your spirit?
Where could I flee from your presence?
If I climb the heavens, you are there,
there too, if I lie in Sheol.
If I flew to the point of sunrise, or westward across the sea
your hand would still be guiding me, your right hand holding me." (Psalms 139:7-10)​

If one can't find refuge from God even in the depths of Sheol, I doubt that even a single atom would provide said refuge.

It might be useful to note that there's a difference between panentheism and pantheism, since the two get confused given they sound so similar:

Pantheism basically asserts that everything is God, that the universe and God are essentially the same thing (personally, I'm not thrilled with the proposition that what we see is "as God as it gets" ).

Meanwhile, panentheism asserts that God is present everywhere (which would logically include within objects, right down to the last atom), but He doesn't stop there; He goes infinitely beyond that and is greater than that.

One diagram I find somewhat helpful distinguishes the two "-isms" being discussed:

The panentheism graphic illustrates both the "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), as well as the "one God and Father of all, who is over everything, through everything, and in everything." (Ephesians 4:6).

 

[Albion]

.

 

[SusanD.]

I'm not sure how that's a heresy, though I'll admit it depends on who one talks to.

If God is, indeed, omnipresent, then that would include Him being in everything.

The panentheism graphic illustrates both the "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), as well as the "one God and Father of all, who is over everything, through everything, and in everything." (Ephesians 4:6).

Hi.
Omnipresence (God being present everywhere) does not quite equate with panentheism (God being in everything). There is no Biblical basis for the concept of panentheism, which blurs the lines between the Creator and His creation. This is what happens to the Christian mindset when getting into mysticism and moving away from Bible truth. The scripture verse you quoted must be considered within context and taking other Bible verses that relate the concept into account. A check of my Bible study tool and interlinear shows that the word translated 'everything' in your quote is translated as 'all' in several Bible translations.
Who are the all though? Primarily, as the Ephesians letter was written to believers, then God is in all believers in Christ. Romans 8:9 gives clear indication that God is not in all people.
Therefore we can work from there that God is not 'in everything'. Is God in my table? Is God in my cup of tea? He created the elements that are used to make the table (wood) but God is not an impersonal essence in every object. This is why I earlier stated that Christians should not borrow from Hinduism etc as these things do lead to heresy (belief or opinion contrary to orthodox doctrine).

 

[Rajni]

Hi.
Omnipresence (God being present everywhere) does not quite equate with panentheism (God being in everything). There is no Biblical basis for the concept of panentheism, which blurs the lines between the Creator and His creation. This is what happens to the Christian mindset when getting into mysticism and moving away from Bible truth. The scripture verse you quoted must be considered within context and taking other Bible verses that relate the concept into account. A check of my Bible study tool and interlinear shows that the word translated 'everything' in your quote is translated as 'all' in several Bible translations.
Who are the all though? Primarily, as the Ephesians letter was written to believers, then God is in all believers in Christ. Romans 8:9 gives clear indication that God is not in all people.
Therefore we can work from there that God is not 'in everything'. Is God in my table? Is God in my cup of tea? He created the elements that are used to make the table (wood) but God is not an impersonal essence in every object. This is why I earlier stated that Christians should not borrow from Hinduism etc as these things do lead to heresy (belief or opinion contrary to orthodox doctrine).

It's not so much borrowing from other religions as it is just simple logic.

 

[SusanD.]

It's not so much borrowing from other religions as it is just simple logic.

Hi.
???

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think mysticism is a way of trying to find peace within oneself with some spiritual connection that can be thought of as God or that can be totally without a God or any diety at all.

I think it is very much tied to ones own mind and trying to expand the mind and body on one's own, usually without prayer, praise or the Word.

Most of the time it is an alternative to God and really seeking God, but more of an inner reflection of whatever someone thinks will give them peace. Like chanting, or meditation or even visualizing things they want to happen.

It is an abomination to God as are all things that we try to accomplish spiritually without God and His strength as Leviticus states. God didn't create us to seek spiritual things outside of Him. Each moment we are either being spiritual or carnal. I believe that these things are carnal, us trying to help ourselves without God. If it were of God, we would be seeking Him for our peace.

 

[Rajni]

Let's review. From post #2:

Christian mysticism refers to the development of mystical practices and theory within Christianity. It has often been connected to mystical theology, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity(both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions).

The attributes and means by which Christian mysticism is studied and practiced are varied. They range from ecstatic visions of the soul's mystical union with God to simple prayerful contemplation of Holy Scripture (i.e., Lectio Divina).

In other words, this is what it is. It isn't what we decide it is.