More vituperous ribaldry than a stick might be shaken towards.

Monday, December 12, 2005

the place of mysticism

This weekend we attended an IMAX presentation called "Mystic India" as part of my company's holiday party. The film, though beautiful, was largely garbage, repeatedly emphasizing peace, unity and equality as the core values of Indian society. While I'm not a cultural expert on India and have a deep respect for its massive diversity, I know it's still struggling from over population, economic repression, and I'm deeply confused why "equality" and "the caste system" (which wasn't mentioned once) aren't mutually exclusive. It was deeply disingenuous.

The film followed the life of one of India's cultural heroes - a boy who became a yogi and walked 8,000 miles over the course of 7 years practicing mystic spirituality throughout India.

Economic realities aside, the film achieved it's purpose of conveying the idea that India is a deeply spiritual place in which mysticism is accepted as part of daily living. Thinking about this in context of my own life here in America has lead me to wonder what place mysticism holds in our world today, and whether or not our culture is suffering from a lack of it.

Christianity has a history rooted in mysticism that is largely lost in our 21st century rendition. Early Christians met together for prayer and fasting, and scripture was read for the purpose of meditation in weekly services. Modernism's effect on Christianity has partially been to remove meditation altogether in favor of analysis, and scripture is read for applicability and relevancy rather than meditation. Indeed, the whole concept of making scripture relevant stems from the presupposition that scripture is only valuable insofar as it is useful. Pragmatism is the conclusive child of modernism, and a cornerstone of the way our culture defines "value."

Given this definition of "value", what is the purpose of mysticism, and is it valuable in our culture today?

In early times, Mysticism and religion for the sake thereof were used as a way of addressing Man's fear of the unknown. While Science and Faith are not at odds by necessity, the developments and advances of Science have quieted our fears about things like the sunrise, seasons, and sickness to the degree to which daily supplication to the divine no longer seems as necessary. With the exception of sickness and death, science has answered all of our questions, and with the exception of Pat Robertson, most of us don't believe hurricanes or long winters are the results of secular living.

Yet Mysticism also plays many secondary roles that are valuable to society. First, it historically helps to give a person a strong sense of his or her place in respect to the rest of the universe. It tends to emphasize responsibility and respect, and gives humanity a proper sense of its weaknesses. Second, it is historically the primary method of relating to the divine. Though real mysticism is totally lost on western evangelicalism, prayer and worship are still seen as the primary method of forming a relationship with God, and historically being a Christian was in part defined by constant mystical communion with the divine presence. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, mysticism serves a as culture builder, by providing common and often corporate meaningful positive experience in a community.

I am not by nature a mystical person. I have little use for prayer and would much rather seek God through actively applying my talents toward what I consider his purposes to be. I am a person of concrete thoughts and actions, wanting to see my efforts result in manifest progress. I am often frustrated by my near absolute inability to desire or enjoy pure religion, feeling that it's purposeless, useless, meaningless and valueless. Seeing that mysticism and religion really are beneficial, I wonder how it should or can be re-integrated in our modern culture without diminishing it. Modern Christianity is replete with false attempts at mystic spirituality driven by commercial efforts to capitalize on the lack of meaning in modern ritual. Things like self-help books and daily devotionals tailored to the finest detail of ones circumstance ("The Max Lucado WWJD daily devotional for Christian teenage girls who enjoy coffee") do more to distract and trivialize the power of mysticism than bring it into our lives.

So how should it be done? What should it look like? How can we re-introduce ritual and liturgy without defaming it while keeping a reasonable eye for relevance? Is mysticism for the sake thereof really of any value, or is it only when mysticism is applied within a certain context or religious framework that it becomes meaningful? How?

Go at it.

13 Comments:

At 1:09 PM, Blogger JMC said...

First of all, Redhurt, this is an excellent post. I really like what you have to say and the way you said it here. I sympathize with your natural predisposition and wrestle also with the right way to reintegrate orthodox (what I will call here ancient) Christianity in our contemporary context. I have a few thoughts that are sort of disorganized at this point, but I would like to throw them out for everyone:

“Seeing that mysticism and religion really are beneficial, I wonder how it should or can be re-integrated in our modern culture without diminishing it. Modern Christianity is replete with false attempts at mystic spirituality driven by commercial efforts to capitalize on the lack of meaning in modern ritual.”

I am not sure that ancient Christianity, its forms, and its beliefs are compatable at all with contemporary Evangelical Christian belief or practice (now, I don’t know what “Evangelical” means exactly - Hans and I use it very differently, for instance - but hopefully you have a sense of what I am talking about). I get into trouble say things like this, but I am fairly convinced at this point that Evangelicals (Mega-Church pastors, Joel Osteen, Max Lucado, Bruce Wilkinson, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, Brennan Manning, and - no offense to those among us who love them - probably the Donald Miller’s and John Eldridge’s, too) do not practice Christianity. That is not to say that Evangelicals are not Christians in the “saved” sense, it is just to say that what constitutes practice, worship, belief, theology, etc. in those communities is not Christian. As far as I can tell, then, ancient beliefs and forms (mysticism, for instance) cannot righly and meaningfully be incorporated into Evangelical Christianity unless it is changed at some of the most basic levels.

”So how should it be done? What should it look like? How can we re-introduce ritual and liturgy without defaming it while keeping a reasonable eye for relevance?”

I don’t know about relevance.... That strikes me as a profoundly un-Christian idea with regard to practice and belief (I think it is a very Christian idea with regard to evangelism, but we should be careful not to confuse the two). By its very nature, orthodox Christianity is strikely irrelevant to contemporary – and, in fact, to nearly all - culture. In addition, to the degree that it was ever relevant, it was not because it sought relevance, but because it recast societies and cultures. In other words, the Church cannot be the Church and be relevant without constituting culture such that the Church is at the center of it all (which, in my opinion, is not something the Church can rightfully do). I think we are destined for obscelence and I think we should find solace and hope in that.

“Is mysticism for the sake thereof really of any value, or is it only when mysticism is applied within a certain context or religious framework that it becomes meaningful? How?”

I think the latter. I, for instance, don’t think that a 7,000 mile hike around India just for the hell of it has much value (other than producing killer legs). Pilgrimages – so central to ancient Christianity – however, are qualitatively different. They are hikes that are self-consciously contextualized in the life of Christ, His apostles, or the saints of the Church. I basically think that we have everything we need to revitalize Christianity in the testament of ancient Christianity, litergy, practice, and theology. The ancient Church has bequeathed to us all sorts of means of participating in the Triune God (the sacraments being foremost); of conforming ourselves to image of Christ (e.g. fasting, pilgrimages, silence, prayer, meditation, confession, scriptures, music, etc.); and a rich vocabulary with which to describe these acts (mysticism being one such vocabulary). In addition, they have provided for us arguably the most robust and rich theological justifications of the value of Christianity’s means and ends.

 
At 1:05 PM, Blogger RJ said...

Barny, if you're trying to say that mysticism is useful by bringing into daily life, I'll hear you out. I think refusing to leave a room without prayer first is a bit weird, myself. "Come on, who wants to pray? Seriously, I'm not leaving this room until we all hold hands and call upon the Lord together."

weird.

John Eldridge ate your lunch.

 
At 1:14 PM, Blogger RJ said...

j. morgan, thanks for your comments. Relevancy can be viewed in several different lights - does mysticism apply differently to any of them?

First, there's the question of whether mysticism can be relevant to culture. You've addressed this quite well, at least as applied in a Christian context, and I agree.

Secnod, there's the question of whether mysticism can be relevant to me individually. This probably betrays an incorrect focus on individualizing the faith, but I think we all want to feel that the mysticism we take part in has meaning for us and apart from us - that it is an inherently spiritual thing to do. This is the quality that gives communion and other ancient rituals so much appeal over our trivial 20th century invented ones, such as nailing pieces of paper with words about our sin on them to a cross, or praying in every room of the house. There's nothing wrong with either of these, but they seem...silly..to me personally, and so for me to take part in them would be disingenuous and devalue the spiritual experience someone else might really derive from it.

is there a genuine and honest way to apply ritual to the 20th century, or has my culture and educational focus made it impossible? Is it really only to be found in forming random spiritual habits, doing "quiet times", etc.?

Barnabas has brought up the point that without the mystic/spiritual side of Christianity, we're just good people who love Jesus. Is that true? Is it really so bad? Because honestly I'd much rather be just a good person who loves Jesus than practice any of the modern spiritual inventions I've come across.

 
At 1:15 PM, Blogger RJ said...

I use "Evangelical" as a buzz word for "Contemporary Mainstream American Christianity." I know this isn't the literal definition of the term, and I think it's different than being a Christian who's concerned with the pracitce of evangelism. "Evangelism" and "Evangelicalism" are distinct.

 
At 11:22 AM, Blogger RJ said...

Barnabas: I just don't know if that's true. Why is mysticism required to be a good person who loves Jesus? Let's separate prayer and ritual for a moment. Does ritual have an essential role to play here, or is it just some sort of supernatural interaction, i.e. prayer?

 
At 12:46 PM, Blogger E.A.P said...

I hate to wade into this stream of thought and just distract you all from your deep and detailed ponderings, but I'll share my experience.

Honestly, going to a Christian college was the nail in the coffin to my ever being an "Average American Evangelical." I had leanings outside the fold but watching hoard after unthinking hoard of freshman spout the chief tenets of that "faith" almost ended me. I was struggling in my own heart with other problems and the hollow forms of worship offered by that culture didn't do much for me.

But every time I walked in the dusk to the cafeteria and noticed the lamps throw light on snow that drifted across my path in the wind, I forgot how cold I was and thanked God for his beautiful planet and my ability experience it. Or when I listened to Russian choral music, I often couldn't help but pray, thanking God for my life, understanding that he feels the pain or frustration that I do and he can also relish the accomplishments of the composer who conjures these emotions from me out of coordinated vibrations in air.

The problem with mysticism is that it is SO deeply personal. As much as Americans are focused on individual spirituality, facing God alone with your faith is not something they ever celebrate as loudly as huddling together and singing next to your buddies in the pew. I think a lot of mysticism is recommended, maybe even some like what I've described as working for me, but it's focus is shifted from worshiping God to making your life better. That's only a side benefits - our focus should be glorifying God.

I think I'm not saying anything helpful. I'm too tired right now to get it out without being face to face in real time with critiques and the whole bit. One more whack at it and then I'll quit wasting your time.

I find the mystical aspects of my daily life speak volumes to me. But the practice of doing specific activities in order to bring God into your daily life - ie, fasting, pilgrimages, etc. - can be inconvenient and thus easily ignored by our culture. Who takes the time to make a special trip to a special place to get closer to God? People who take Christian cruises think they do but I don't think that's quite it. Pilgrimage and vacation are not synonyms.

I think the biggest reason mysticism is ignored in our culture is that, as you said, it so different from scientific and rational ways of thought, but it also requires us to take time. It requires us to take a hike without an iPOD, three friends, and a book in case we get bored; to stop our lives for a moment and notice God's handiwork in a dandelion puff; to look like a fool for one second in front of our friends when we announce we're taking a pilgrimage this Easter.

I'll wrap with a quote from someone who took the pilgrimage of Santiago de Compostela because I think she details how we all struggle with mystical undertakings and how they can affect our lives:

"For many years a voice had been calling me to the Camino. Books I came across just sang to my soul, walk! walk! walk!. So after great debate about could I do it, could I leave my family for six weeks and the usual fear triggers, I decided that I would give it a go. I didn't read too much of anyone else's stories, it has to be your journey. Listening to others sometimes put you off and their fear and their experience will not be yours. Remember it is your Camino. I walked alone and am so glad I did, I felt the peace, had to make my own decisions, let my spirit and God guide me the right way, to the right place at the right time. By the way I was never let down, I always found somewhere to rest my head and somewhere to eat.

"It is an incredible journey in terms of scenery and culture but what a wonderful spiritual adventure."

 
At 12:38 PM, Blogger JMC said...

So there are a few things that I wanted to comment on to see if we can’t keep this discussion going.

As Redhurt said, “there's the question of whether mysticism can be relevant to me individually. This probably betrays an incorrect focus on individualizing the faith, but I think we all want to feel that the mysticism we take part in has meaning for us and apart from us - that it is an inherently spiritual thing to do.”

Now, I actually think that this is the more important question (as compared to cultural relevance). I don’t think it is wrong at all to desire that faith provide perceivable, experienced meaning for you as a believer. If, for instance, you look at the Desert Fathers of the ancient Church, you see an intense desire to participate in the Triune God on the model of John the Baptist or Jesus in the desert before his public ministry rather than on the model of the Apostles. The idea was that, through solitude, intense prayer, fasting, or asceticism, one could be purified and conformed more fully. It was usually not a full way of life, but a preparation for then rejoining a community. Anyway, the point is that this perceivable participation in the Triune God in striving to be more holy is what mysticism is all about.

So, Redhurt asks, “is there a genuine and honest way to apply ritual to the 20th century, or has my culture and educational focus made it impossible? Is it really only to be found in forming random spiritual habits, doing "quiet times", etc.?”

As I see it, Mysticism is a practice – a discipline – and not just an experience. As such, you have to work at it. It, like all Christian disciplines, is a formative practice designed to purify your affinity for God through the means provided by His Church. I think it is important to understand that the practice of mystical Christianity is not natural experienced as meaningful for most people until they are fundamentally recast in light of it. That is the point; nobody by nature correctly understands how to experience God or has an affinity to do so. It is through Grace and discipline that the Christian comes to understand how to experience God and what that looks like. It is not until that happens that avoiding food, hiking, or periods of celibacy have any meaning.

To respond to the second part of your question, I think that random spiritual habits are of almost no value. Quiet times, praise choruses, bible studies – in short, what passes for spiritual formation in contemporary Christianity - is crap precisely because somebody just made them up on their own about 10 minutes ago with the intent of allowing you to experience God apart from painful, disciplined practice that reforms your person. It takes a lifetime to properly experience God and to understand how to properly practice experiencing God. The upper-middle class 20-something that wrote “Lord, I Lift Your Name on High” doesn’t have a clue. The man who lived in a cave for 30 years in the wilderness of Egypt 1700 years ago does (not to mention the fact that generations of Christians practicing his discipline have allowed for the refinement of his practices).

So, as I have already alluded to, where I think this gets off track is when Evangelicals (and I am using that as Barnabas would use it) confuse individual with unencumbered. Quiet times, praying before you leave the room, praise choruses, etc. are failures for just this reason and, ironically, the result is that thoughtful Christians think they themselves are failures when “it doesn’t work” for them. The reason it doesn’t work is because these means fundamentally misunderstand what it means to experience God. I think e.a.p. got it exactly right, American Christianity, for as much as it uses the vacuous language of “personal relationship” is not really that personal, just individualistic / self-help / empowerment stuff that bristles at the idea of discipline and practice in order to experience God:

“The problem with mysticism is that it is SO deeply personal. As much as Americans are focused on individual spirituality, facing God alone with your faith is not something they ever celebrate as loudly as huddling together and singing next to your buddies in the pew. I think a lot of mysticism is recommended, maybe even some like what I've described as working for me, but it's focus is shifted from worshiping God to making your life better. That's only a side benefits - our focus should be glorifying God.”

The other sort of problem I see is that there is a tendency to see mystical Christian practice as real Christianity and other Christian practices as unneeded dressing. Barnabas says as much here:

“What I am saying is that without "mysticism" as you define it, we can't really be good people who love Jesus. It means we know who Jesus is, and respect that enough to imitate Him, and are therefore good people.”

Liturgy, good works, prayer, the sacraments, etc. are not things Christians do, they are Christianity. That is what “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” is. To make a distinction between “being a Christian” and “doing Christian things” is to fall squarely outside orthodoxy. Now, that is not to say that these are all Christianity is. Mysticism, then, is a method by which Christians cultivate some of those other, more subjective qualities that are Christianity.

 
At 9:50 PM, Blogger RJ said...

e.a.p: thanks for stopping by and leaving your comments - I appreciate them immensly. I think I'm in the same place you are - I've failed to experience modern conceptions of mysticism but nevertheless experienced spiritual moments.

 
At 10:01 PM, Blogger RJ said...

j. morgan:

"The man who lived in a cave for 30 years in the wilderness of Egypt 1700 years ago does [understand how to get closer to God]"

I'll agree with you here in one sense, but not in another. In one sense, Christianity is the product of its history and built from the traditions of its past. Similar to other middle-eastern religions, Christianity shares a long history of mystic ritual. Some of this includes things like living ascetically, and some of it does not. Inasmuch as this history is the essence of Christianity, this form of mysticism must be part of it. Inasmuch as it serves to provide a link to the past, it has value.

Yet does history really imply intrinsic value? I know this is a rather modern question to ask, but I can't buy that sitting in a cave is valuable simply because it's an old practice rooted in tradition - that makes it seem as arbitrary as quiet time; just something older. There are absolute distinctions between good ways and bad ways to do many other things in our lives and in this religion, and I can't accept that our only test for how valuable a form of mysticism is is its age. If quiet times become the practiced norm for the next thousand years while cave dwelling is on the downswing, I still would not say it's an essential form of Christian conduct. So what's the essential difference between the two? I could speculate, but I'd like to hear what you say first.

Second, I do not see cave dwelling as a viable option for either my or your life today. As such, we're relegated to less spectacular forms of mystic involvement. Seeing as how we're still intent on knowing God, are any of these worthwhile, or should we give up our jobs, lives, culture, community, and run to the desert? The fundamental question implicit in this discussion is, "how should I live?"

In my modern conception of the world, good works seem like the most viable, liveable, and acceptable form of Christianity we can practice. I struggle with the value of mysticism, so I find myself running more and more towards education (reading about religion, God, and Christian things) and good works (serving others, building community, etc.) as "religious" outlets. Perhaps I need to find a community I feel is correctly practicing Christian mysticism, and simply do it, trusting that as I'm "re-cast" it will gain the meaning it currently lacks entirely.

 
At 12:35 PM, Blogger JMC said...

Redhurt:

“Inasmuch as this history is the essence of Christianity, this form of mysticism must be part of it.”

I think that is just it, Christianity is irrevocably historical. Orthodox Christianity is not a religion of the present, but of the past. Even the ancient Church – the first generation called Christian - understood that they were nothing on their own, but inheritors of God’s promises to Israel before them. Christianity is always insufficient in the present tense. One of the crucial, foundational differences between Christianity and other Abrahamic religion is the centrality of inheritance. Inheritance requires, not only a reverence for the past, but an adherence to it. We are not a self-sufficient faith, but one that is rooted from without, requiring a historical view to claim those roots as our own. One only need look as far as Jesus to see that: He is only the Christ insofar as we acknowledge that truth to rest with Judaism and not Christianity. In as much we don’t like that, we don’t like Christianity.

“If quiet times become the practiced norm for the next thousand years while cave dwelling is on the downswing, I still would not say it's an essential form of Christian conduct. So what's the essential difference between the two?”

Because quiet times aren’t Christian and asceticism is. Furthermore, quiet times can never be Christian because it wasn’t inherited; it was made up. The Christian faith is not ours to do with as we please; we can’t simply make up denominations and practices because we lack the authority to do so. Rather, we are required by our creeds (e.g. the Nicene Creed’s affirmation of “the communion of saints”) to accept what we have inherited and advance it when necessary, but never replace it.

“Second, I do not see cave dwelling as a viable option for either my or your life today. As such, we're relegated to less spectacular forms of mystic involvement. Seeing as how we're still intent on knowing God, are any of these worthwhile, or should we give up our jobs, lives, culture, community, and run to the desert? The fundamental question implicit in this discussion is, ‘how should I live?’”

As I pointed out, “[the mystical asceticism of the Desert Fathers] was usually not a full way of life, but a preparation for then rejoining a community.” Even in the 3rd and 4th centuries, most who lived in the desert only did so for a time; to be purified and learn the practice of ascetic mysticism. They then rejoined their communities to live holy lives among the Christian faithful of the world. My point is that this should not be, for most of us, a way of life, but an example of practices in which, from time to time, we need to find retreat. It would not be unreasonable for us to take two weeks every year to visit an abbey, monastery, state park, etc. to allow ourselves to be purified in prayer, fasting, solitude, etc.. Even more basic is the Christian calendar: lent is a season when average Christians participate in something of the ascetic for just that purpose. In short, there are lots of ways to practice mysticism without making it all that you do. You can be a teacher, engineer, mechanic - whatever.

“In my modern conception of the world, good works seem like the most viable, liveable, and acceptable form of Christianity we can practice. I struggle with the value of mysticism, so I find myself running more and more towards education (reading about religion, God, and Christian things) and good works (serving others, building community, etc.) as ‘religious’ outlets. Perhaps I need to find a community I feel is correctly practicing Christian mysticism, and simply do it, trusting that as I'm "re-cast" it will gain the meaning it currently lacks entirely.”

I am right there with you, only not as diligent as you are. Look, I don’t want anyone going off to the desert for the next 30 years. I think we should be more concerned with feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless. That said, I want Christians to acknowledge and have access to the mystical practices that we have inherited to help purify and form us.

 
At 9:29 PM, Blogger RJ said...

"Orthodox Christianity is not a religion of the present, but of the past."

I'll agree with you there, but only inasmuch as Orthodox Christianity is unpracticed, unvalued, and irrelevant to culture at large today.

However, I take issue with your claim that this has always been the case. Christianity is absolutely not a religion of the past tense, a religion of things long gone, or a religion of looking backward. Though that is certainly an essential element, it is also deeply involved in looking forward, though more than any of these, it looks to the present. Christ himself often advocated throwing tradition to the wind or forgetting what the world called prudent preparation for the future for his cause, because his cause was one of the present, of the now, and for the living, and not the dead.

At the end of your response you move towards some practical implications of our inhereted past, but you still seem largely fixated on the idea that "Christian" practice has no meaning outside of "what ancient Christians did." I really have to disagree. I think tradition is vitally important and essential to our conception of Christianity, and a good understanding of the history of the faith absolutely necessary to take full part in it. Yet I believe there's more to it than this. Christianity, like all religions and social institutions, is not static or stagnant. Indeed, one of the greatest strengths of the Christian religion has been its ability to evolve to fit a myriad of circumstances and occasions.

This is manifestly the case - Christianity is and always has been more than only its past.

So my question is still, what is it about other forms of mysticism that make them so much better than our quiet times? So we won't be living in caves - do you think your two weeks in a state park should be a standard practice? What are these other new sorts of mysticism, and how should they be applied?

 
At 11:53 AM, Blogger JMC said...

Redhurt:

“Christianity is absolutely not a religion of the past tense, a religion of things long gone, or a religion of looking backward. Though that is certainly an essential element, it is also deeply involved in looking forward, though more than any of these, it looks to the present.”

So, I want to make two distinctions: the first is a distinction between antiquarian and historical; the second is between past and gone.

First, I think this quote unfairly characterizes what I was saying, because it makes my view on Christianity antiquarian, “good because it is old.” My point, rather, was that Christianity is dependent on the past in order for the present to have any meaning. The Christian present is always insufficient apart from the Christian past.

Second, I think this quote unfairly characterizes the Christian belief in “the communion of saints” as only being those present saints. The point of communion is that we, as the Body of Christ, past, present, and future, all meet and participate in God. For Christians, what has past is not gone; just not present.

I also want to mention that my claims are directed towards the nature of Christianity as a religion and not the concerns, goals, purposes, etc. of that religion. So, I absolutely agree that Christians, above all, are involved in the present in light of future hope. No contest. That involvement and hope, however, are necessarily grounded in the past and that was my point.

“Christ himself often advocated throwing tradition to the wind or forgetting what the world called prudent preparation for the future for his cause, because his cause was one of the present, of the now, and for the living, and not the dead.”

I actually profoundly disagree with that statement, but I understand what your point is here. I think Christ intentionally identified himself with a long tradition of reminding the Jewish faithful of their future hope that would fulfill the Law, which, in this case, was made present. I also think that his cause was both the living and the dead. That said, I think Jesus was radical; I just don’t see that as being un-historical and anti-traditional.

“...you still seem largely fixated on the idea that ‘Christian’ practice has no meaning outside of ‘what ancient Christians did.’”

My intention was to argue that ancient Christians demonstrated right Christian practice and a right understanding of what that entailed in a qualitatively different way than contemporary Christians do. So, I think it goes beyond what ancient Christians did, to what they understood and intended in so doing.

“Christianity, like all religions and social institutions, is not static or stagnant. Indeed, one of the greatest strengths of the Christian religion has been its ability to evolve to fit a myriad of circumstances and occasions.”

Again, I am not sure why you would associate tradition and historicity with static and stagnant. I don’t think they have anything to do with each other. Let me make a distinction here between progression and invention. Christianity must and should progress in practice, belief, language, etc. Progression, though, implies modification, augmentation, adjusting, etc. of pre-existing materials. Invention, on the other hand, involves introducing or producing something new. My argument is that invention is profoundly un-Christian; I was saying nothing about progression.

”So my question is still, what is it about other forms of mysticism that make them so much better than our quiet times?”

As I said before in this conversation:

“I think it is important to understand that the practice of mystical Christianity is not natural experienced as meaningful for most people until they are fundamentally recast in light of it. That is the point; nobody by nature correctly understands how to experience God or has an affinity to do so. It is through Grace and discipline that the Christian comes to understand how to experience God and what that looks like.”

Contemporary forms of mysticism and “spirituality” are un-Christian, not just because they are inventions, but because they misunderstand experiencing God at a basic level. It is not something that is easily knowable, recognizable, and doable. It is not something that crappy music or Oswald Chambers is going to produce. It is difficult and requires discipline, restraint, practice, and time. That is precisely why ancient Christians went to live in the desert. Mysticism and contemporary spirituality are basically different in their understanding of what they are trying to achieve and how that ought to be done. It turns out that the Desert Fathers were right and Christian and that the contemporary spiritualists are wrong and un-Christian. That is what makes it so much better.

Now, I don’t think we always have to practice that discipline in the same way, but I think the form and understanding ought to be basically the same. This is progression. Fasting, intense prayer, solitude, etc. need to stay, the ways that is done don’t necessarily.

 
At 8:37 PM, Blogger RJ said...

j. morgan: Perfect - I feel that we're getting somewhere now. Your second to last paragraph was just what I was looking for: a clear distinction of what makes modern "mysticism" less than historic conceptions of it.

You've said now that the mistake of modern mysticism is that it assumes Christianity is something that can be easily lived and accomplished - not just that it's an invention, but that this invention flies in the face of what would be an acceptable historic progression; namely something that requires "discipline, restraint, practice and time."

You've given a good outline of the abstract qualities modern mysticism should require. Now, is there any way to define the practical way Christians should implement these, as a standard of our faith in the modern world? Is there anyone implementing mysticism correctly in the world today? Would their methods be practical and doable in the West?

I think you've hit on something with the discipline. I think I'd be much less adverse to mystic practices and claims if I believed the so-called mystics were honest. As it is, in modern Christianity, though many implementations aren't inherently bad, their are far too many fakers abusing the only language we have to speak about it with and as a result making everyone look disingenuous. For example, I really believe that Oswald Chambers and Max Lucado have written some truly inspired stuff. Yet it's impossible for me to really believe them when Joel Ostein is pontificating with all the same words, and doing quiet times with Lucado really doesn't require any more discipline or effort than reading "Your Best Life Now" for half an hour every morning. How can we add some discipline to the modern Christian life?

In defense of my previous comment, I don't think you clearly articulated any distinction between a historic progression and antiquated customs. I did misrepresent you a bit, but only to force the issue to be more clearly defined. Please understand that I didn't really believe you thought Christianity to be entirely unconcerned with the present.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home